State of Tennessee vs. Dorothy Sheldon - Dissenting

The majority concludes that venue was proper in Dickson County. I respectfully disagree. In finding venue in Dickson County, the majority, relying upon Girdley v. State, 29 S.W.2d 255 (Tenn. 1930), employs an agency theory to establish the appellant's constructive presence in Dickson County. I am unable to agree with the majority's rational for two reasons. First, in Girdley, the defendant was charged with the offense of uttering or attempting to pass a forged check. Had the appellant in this case been charged with uttering or passing a forged writing, I would agree that venue would have been proper in Dickson County. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(D). However, as reflected by the indictment, the State chose to indict the appellant in Dickson County for forgery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-114(b)(1)(A).