TPC 32.51 possession / use of identifying info can be prosecuted in county where the offense was committed or where the victim lives. What indictment venue language is suggested when prosecuting where the victim lives? It doesn't seem right to allege "in the County and State aforesaid did then and there..." Help?

IT may not seem right, but it is.

Check out art. 13.17 CCP: "the indictment or information, or any pleading in the case, may allege that the offense was committed in the county where the prosecution is carried on."

You will likewise, in the event of jury trial, need an instruction to the effect that if the jury finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the county has venue, then they will find the offense to have been "committed in the county" for purposes of the indicted offense.

Why couldn't the indictment allege both the county where the offense was committed and also allege the county where the victim lives? This would eliminate the need for later clarification.

I wouldn't advocate alleging facts which would arguably establish venue in some other county than where you are. I suppose you could write out in your indictment that the offense was committed in "X" County against victim, "who was then a resident of [your local] county," but don't you run the risk of confusing the venue issue by alleging facts which would establish venue in more than one place?

I think it would simply be easier to set out that the offense was committed in the local county, then voir dire and charge the jury on the law so that they understand why that is alleged that way. I think most jurors will understand why the legislature allows for it.

For example, you may have a murder case that involves a dead body found in your county (this has actually happened in my county several times). It may be clear that the murder did not happen at the scene of the discovery, but not where it did occur. You may have evidence to suggest that it occurred elsewhere and the body was then moved, but your dead body finding is a lock solid piece of evidence. Why bother with alleging things you might not prove when it's completely unnecessary?

In an identity theft case, you may have the information being mailed from one location, but used at another. Why not make it simple and simply allege the victim's residence for venue, then explain to the jury that they needn't concern themselves with anything else (other than the actual commission of the crime, of course).