This view has been adopted in other jurisdictions as well.State v. Dykes, 261 Iowa 1363, 158 N.W.2d 154 (1968); Williams v. State, 365 P.2d 569 (Okla.Cr. 1961); People v. Brock, 21 Cal.App.2d 601, 70 P.2d 210 (1937). Appellant has contended that the unlawful conduct did not occur until the bank in Salt Lake City accepted the check from him.
"`* * * If, from the facts and evidence, the only rational conclusion which can be drawn is that the crime was committed in the state and county alleged, the proof is sufficient. * * *.' 30 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 1131." See also State v. Dykes, 261 Iowa 1363, 1365, 158 N.W.2d 154, 155-156. In State v. Conley, 176 N.W.2d 213, 215 (Iowa 1970), the court made this statement:
We have had little occasion in the past to consider the quantum of proof of conversion required necessary in cases of this kind. In similar cases there has always been proof of some overt act of defendant which is inconsistent with the rights of the true owner of the property; State v. Dykes (Iowa, 1968), 158 N.W.2d 154 (sale of corn at other than designated elevator); State v. Christiansen, 231 Iowa 525, 1 N.W.2d 623 (admitted collection of monies retained by agent and kept by him); State v. Schumacher, 162 Iowa 231, 143 N.W. 1110 (use of company funds to purchase grain options); State v. Boggs, 166 Iowa 452, 147 N.W. 934 (pledge of nonowned contract as security for personal loan); State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208, 154 N.W. 488 (commingling and use of funds by agent. The funds belonged to the principal).