We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia1 to consider the proper scope of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to establish venue. We hold that, because venue is an essential element of the State’s case and must be decided by a jury, only evidence presented to the jury may be considered on appeal. Because the Court of Appeals relied upon material not presented to the jury, and because the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish venue for his misdemeanor conviction, we reverse in part. A Houston County jury convicted Phillip E. Thompson of felony child molestation and misdemeanor sexual battery based on two incidents involving his 13-year-old daughter. Thompson appealed, contending that venue was not properly established.2 The evidence at trial showed that one of the incidents occurred at Thompson’s residence and the other occurred at his place of business. In concluding that there was sufficient evidence of venue as to each incident, the Court of Appeals relied upon two statements made in Thompson’s written motion for reconsideration of bond. The motion, filed on Thompson’s behalf by his counsel, stated that Thompson had been a Houston County resident all his life and that his place of business was in Houston County.
1. The standard for review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is whether “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”3 The review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support venue is no different because venue is an essential element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in every criminal trial.4 In considering this standard, this Court and the Court of Appeals have consistently stated that the evidentiary review is limited to the evidence actually presented to the jury.5 Other appellate courts have affirmatively rejected arguments that evidence outside the trial record should be considered.6 The Court of Appeals, however, relied upon evidence that was never presented to the jury in order to conclude that evidence of venue was sufficient. By relying on materials never admitted into evidence, the Court of Appeals failed to conduct a proper sufficiency review.
