COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED December 12, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-2273-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GLIGORIJE LUKIC,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
BONNIE L. GORDON, Judge. Affirmed.
FINE, J. Gligorije Lukic appeals from a judgment
entered on a jury verdict convicting him of endangering safety by use of a
dangerous weapon, see § 941.20(1), Stats. The only issue
on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to prove venue.
A defendant in a
criminal case must be tried in the county where the crime is alleged to have
occurred. Wis. Const. art. I, § 7; § 971.19(1), Stats. This case was
tried in Milwaukee County. Accordingly,
the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lukic pointed the gun in
Milwaukee County. See State
v. Dombrowski, 44 Wis.2d 486, 502, 171 N.W.2d 349, 357 (1969). The complaint in this action alleges that
Lukic pointed a gun at another person “at 900 So. 4[th] St. APT #4, City of
Milwaukee.” Lukic claims that there was
insufficient evidence of venue. We
affirm.
Evidence of venue need
not be direct; venue “is sufficiently proved if there is reference in the
evidence to the locality known or probably familiar to the jury where the act
constituting the offense was committed from which the jury may reasonably have
concluded that the place was in the county alleged.” Piper v. State, 202 Wis. 58, 61, 231 N.W. 162, 164
(1930). Here, there was evidence that
Lukic pointed a gun at the victim in Lukic's apartment, which, according to
Lukic's testimony, was “900 South 4th Street.”
There was also evidence that the victim's call to the police was
responded to by an on-duty police officer employed by the City of Milwaukee who
received a radio-dispatch from his department.
The officer first went to the victim's residence on West Walker Street,
and then went to the defendant's residence, which was no more than five to ten
minutes away. Even if some of the
jurors might not have associated either South 4th Street or West Walker Street
with the City of Milwaukee, cf. ibid. (Fond du lac Avenue
was “at least probably known to the jurors as a street in Milwaukee”), the jury
could reasonably conclude that the officer would not be responding to the
radio-call outside of his jurisdiction, and that the officer would not go to
the scene of the alleged incident if that scene was outside of his jurisdiction
unless that officer first sought assistance from officers within the other
jurisdiction. There is no evidence in
the record that assistance was sought from another jurisdiction.
The evidence before the
jury was sufficient to permit them to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
the crime alleged in the criminal complaint did in fact take place in the City
of Milwaukee. See State v.
Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, 757-758 (1990). Reasonable jurors would know that the City
of Milwaukee is in Milwaukee County.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.