reflect that the defendant expressly authorized such stipulation and that the stipulation was intended to obviate the need for direct proof.”); see also State v. Dixon, 286 Ga. 706, 708 (2) (691 SE2d 207) (2010) (“A criminal defendant may waive jurisdictional defenses and may expressly authorize factual stipulations that will obviate the need for proof.” (citations omitted)). Cf. Thompson, 277 Ga. at 104 (2) (“Because no valid stipulation regarding venue existed, the State was required to introduce evidence at trial on the issue.”). 23 Owens v. State, 317 Ga. App. 821, 823 (1) (733 SE2d 16) (2012) (punctuation omitted). 24 Id. 25 Bradley v. State, 292 Ga. 607, 614 (5) (740 SE2d 100) (2013) (punctuation omitted). 26 See Davenport v. State, 308 Ga. App. 140, 157 (3) (706 SE2d 757) (2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Dandy v. State, 238 Ga. App. 435,
holding that trial court erred in denying motion for judgment of acquittal when state failed to prove venue holding that a district court did not commit reversible error because it attached great weight to one factor holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding that trial court did not commit reversible error when it submitted admissibility of evidence question to jury because the trial court had independently decided the question holding that trial court did not commit error when it allowed state to reopen evidence to establish venue