With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is governed by its own jurisdictional provision, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-88-110(a) (1987), which provides that where a kidnapping occurs in more than one county, “the jurisdiction shall be in the county in which the kidnapping, seizing, or confining was committed, or in any county in which it was continued.” Our cases have consistently recognized that when a crime begins in one county and proceeds to culmination in another county, both counties have jurisdiction to prosecute the crime. For example, in Ellis v. State, 291 Ark. 72, 722 S.W.2d 575 (1987) (per curiam), this court denied relief under Rule 37 where the defendant alleged that Jefferson County lacked jurisdiction to try him for kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Relying on Ark. Stat. Ann § 43-1414, now codified as secti 22) (<HOLDING>). Here, the facts clearly establish that Ms.

A: holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest
B: recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 
C: holding that the state has the right to elect in which county the offense may be prosecuted where the jurisdiction is concurrent under the statutes and until the final judgment which operates as a bar to further prosecution in either county the states right of selection of the forum continues
D: holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county
C.