State v. Stumbo
| Decision Date | 14 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 50379,50379 |
| Citation | 253 Iowa 276,111 N.W.2d 664 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Buddy Alfred STUMBO, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Mahoney, Jordan, Statton & Smith, Boone, for appellant.
Evan Hultman, Atty. Gen. of Iowa, John H. Allen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Stanley R. Simpson, County Atty., Boone, for appellee.
Defendant was accused by a county attorney's information of the crime of rape of a fourteen year old child, in violation of Section 698.1, Code of Iowa 1958, I.C.A. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and, from judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
The prosecutrix is a child fourteen years of age residing with her parents in Boone, Iowa, and the defendant, seventeen years of age, also resides with his parents in Boone. He had quit school in the grades, but was then unemployed.
The only issue in this appeal is whether the evidence failed to prove the alleged crime occurred in Boone County, Iowa. If so, defendant contends the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal and in not setting aside the verdict of guilty and dismissing the information.
I. It is, of course, necessary for the State to prove venue of the alleged crime. Section 753.2, Code 1958, I.C.A. This is a jurisdictional fact which must be proven and, unless the court takes judicial notice thereof or the accused admits it, the same must be shown by competent evidence, either direct or circumstantial. State v. Ladd, Iowa, 106 N.W.2d 100, and citations. As pointed out in the Ladd case, the more recent authorities seem to hold that the application of judicial notice is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court and that the real test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact involved as to make it safe and proper to assume its existence without specific proof. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, sections 19 and 22; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, section 12. Consel concedes that under this recent decision testimony that the alleged crime had occurred in the Ledges State Park would have been sufficient to prove venue in Boone County, Iowa, but that the testimony of the witnesses that it occurred 'near', 'in the vicinity or area near the Ledges State Park', 'south of the Ledges', 'down around the Ledges', and 'in or near the vicinity of the Ledges State Park', was not sufficiently specific. It is true in the Ladd case we stated that the trial court might take judicial notice of various factors such as the location of cities and towns, geographical boundaries, and the location of certain designated places when shown to be within 'a certain distance of an established point'. But from the authorities cited we also found the rule to be that if the evidence is such that the fact of venue may be fairly inferable therefrom, a jury question is presented. The trial court, following that rule, took judicial notice of the fact that the Ledges State Park was in Boone County and submitted to the jury the question of whether the act was committed in Boone County under the testimony of the witnesses as to their locality at the time in relation to the State Park. We cannot say the court erred in so doing.
II. Where the fair inference under the testimony is that the crime was committed within the county, a jury question on venue is presented. State v. Ladd, Supra, Iowa, 106 N.W.2d 100; State v. Benson, 247 Iowa 406, 72 N.W.2d 438; State v. Caskey, 200 Iowa 1397, 206 N.W. 280; State v. Meyer, 135 Iowa 507, 113 N.W. 322; State v. Laffer, 38 Iowa 422. It was said in State v. Meyer, supra, at page 511 of 135 Iowa, at page 324 of 113 N.W., that the 'fact of venue may be established like any other fact, and, where the fair inference from the evidence adduced or the circumstances proven is that the transaction in issue occurred within the county, the finding of the jury cannot be disturbed on appeal.'
Defendant contends that 'near' is a relative term and may be miles from a given spot; that 'south of' is much too general to designate a place, and that 'in the vicinity' does not permit an inference of certainty or establish the place within a specific distance from an established point. We do not agree, but under the facts and circumstances established by this record w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hackett
...1971, Chapter 753; State v. Hackett, 197 N.W.2d at 570--571; State v. Conley, 176 N.W.2d 213, 215 (Iowa 1970); State v. Stumbo, 253 Iowa 276, 278--280, 111 N.W.2d 664 (1961); 1 Underhill's Criminal Evidence, § 95 (5th III. As above stated defendant next asserts his privilege against self-in......
-
State v. Wardenburg
...or the accused admits it, the same must be shown by competent evidence either direct or circumstantial. See also State v. Stumbo, 253 Iowa 276, 278, 111 N.W.2d 664, 665; and 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § Venue is put in issue by a plea of not guilty. Sharp. v. Waddill, Ky., 371 S.W.2d 14, and ci......
-
State v. Campbell
...(emphasis added) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 911 (1968))). 3. See State v. Stumbo, 253 Iowa 276, 111 N.W.2d 664, 665-66 (Iowa 1961) ("The ordinary and common usage of the word `vicinity' is a relative term, synonymous with such words as `neighborho......
-
State v. Simpson
...County within a radius of eight or nine miles. This is sufficient to send the case to the jury on the issue of venue. State v. Stumbo, Iowa, 111 N.W.2d 664, 665; and State v. Ladd, 252 Iowa 487, 106 N.W.2d 100; and citations in each. The jury could properly find the crime was committed in H......