Saturday, April 08, 2006

Mark Duane Workman was my upstairs neighbor when I lived in Murray. I would never have pegged him for a car theif, or a stolen car reciever.

State v. Workman, 2006 UT App 116

Venue was proper in Utah county for Workman's theft by recieving conviction, even though Workman lived in Salt Lake County and the stolen item, a 1998 Mitsubishi Mirage, was stolen in Salt Lake County. The car was found by police in Utah county in the possesion of Workman's girlfriend.

The court of appeals looked to the venue statute, Utah Code Ann. 76-1-202(1)(g)(iii), which says that venue for a theft charge is proper in any county where the defendant exercises control over the stolen property. Whether Workman exercised control over the car is a fact sensitive question, so the court of appeals gave the trial court some deference in the application of the facts to the venue statute. The court of appeals ultimately concluded that venue was proper because Workman had only loaned the car to his girlfriend, and she had contacted him while in Utah county to get his permission to keep the car there another day.


Post a Comment

<< Home