## Facts

- A Grand Island police officer observed a vehicle weaving across the full width of 7th Street for several blocks, then turning onto Oak Street and running over a curb at an intersection.
- The officer stopped the vehicle on Oak Street and identified the driver as Mark W. Vejvoda.
- The officer observed bloodshot, watery eyes; a strong odor of alcohol from the vehicle; slow, sluggish reactions; and difficulty producing a driver’s license.
- When asked to perform field sobriety tests, Vejvoda swayed, wobbled, and had difficulty maintaining balance.
- The officer formed the opinion that Vejvoda was under the influence of alcohol and arrested him for drunk driving.
- At the bench trial, the officer was the sole witness; the defense did not cross-examine, and Vejvoda offered no evidence.
- The officer did not expressly testify that the events occurred in Hall County.
- After the State rested, the trial court stated it would take judicial notice that the streets and locations described were within Grand Island and that Grand Island lies wholly within Hall County.
- Vejvoda was convicted of drunk driving and received an enhanced sentence based on a prior conviction; the district court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a bench-trial conviction for drunk driving.
2. Whether the State failed to prove venue in Hall County, and whether the trial court improperly used judicial notice to establish that the described locations were within Hall County.

## Decision

- The conviction and enhanced sentence were affirmed.
- The evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, was sufficient to support the finding that Vejvoda was driving under the influence.
- The trial court properly took judicial notice of commonly known geographic facts that the described streets were in Grand Island and that Grand Island lies wholly within Hall County.
- Venue was adequately shown through judicial notice and reasonable inferences from the record, despite the absence of an express statement naming the county.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a criminal conviction after a bench trial, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility and asks only whether the evidence supports the conviction.
- Courts may take judicial notice of geographic facts that are matters of common knowledge, including that particular streets are within a municipality and that a municipality lies within a given county.
- Venue is not an element of the substantive offense, but the State must prove territorial jurisdiction; venue may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and appropriate judicial notice.
- Venue does not require express “magic words” naming the county if the location can be reasonably inferred from the evidence and judicially noticed geographic facts.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the DUI conviction and enhancement, holding that the officer’s observations supported intoxication and that venue in Hall County was sufficiently established through judicial notice of local geography and circumstantial proof from the record.


State v. Vejvoda, 438 N.W.2d 461 (Neb. 1989)