With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to ... a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed ...” (Emphasis added.) In Montana, it is firmly established that venue, although not an element of the crime, is a “jurisdictional fact” that must be established at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Price, 2002 MT 229, ¶ 11, 311 Mont. 439, ¶ 11, 57 P.3d 42, ¶ 11; State v. Johnson (1993), 257 Mont. 157, 161, 848 P.2d 496, 498. However, this Court has recognized that direct evidence that an offense was committed in a particular county is not required to prove venue. State v. Keeland (1909), 39 Mont. 506, 513, 104 P. 513, 516 (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 257 Mont. at 161, 848 P.2d at 498

A: holding that circumstantial evidence maybe sufficient to prove venue
B: holding testimony that defendant delivered cocaine maybe 20 or 30 times was sufficient to support conviction
C: holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition
D: holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction
A.