A New Law Dictionary 766 (1850) (defining “offence” as “[a]n act committed against a law, or omitted where the law requires it, and punishable by it”). The text does not distinguish between the conduct of the accused and that of any other person, indicating that any conduct that constitutes an element of the offense can establish venue. Thus, the text does not on its face limit venue to the location of the accused’s conduct. Case law construing the venue provision, though there is little addressing that issue, supports that conclusion. For example, it has long been the law in this state that venue can properly be established by the conduct of a third party if the accused bears criminal responsibility for that conduct. See, e.g., State of Oregon v. Barnett, 15 Or 77, 82, 14 P 737 (1887) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court refined that rule in State
holding that an undercover agent is not an accomplice as long as the agent does not bring about the crime but merely obtains evidence to be used against those engaged in crime holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways holding no derivative entrapment where middleman was induced by a government agent to commit crime responding to pressure takes it upon himself to induce another to participate in crime holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred holding that the employer was not the insurers agent