Opinion ID: 1093261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: should there have been a second change of venue?

Text: In discussing the effect of extensive and inflammatory news media coverage of Fisher's first trial, this Court held that venue of this case should have been transferred to a county substantially outside the coverage described above. Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203, 223 (Miss. 1985). After venue was changed to Smith County, Fisher moved for a second change of venue, producing affidavits purporting to show that Smith County was still within the coverage of the Meridian news media. In support of the motion, Fisher produced an affidavit from Robert Ward, general manager of WTOK-TV in Meridian, stating that according to the Arbitron Corporation, WTOK had 8% of the viewing audience in Smith County; from Mike Partridge, general manager of WJDQ, a radio station in Meridian, stating that Smith County is within the station's primary coverage area; and from Eddie Smith, general manager of WMOX, a radio station in Meridian, also attesting that Smith County is within its regular listening area. In effect Fisher proposes a syllogism: Larry Fisher cannot receive a fair trial in an area heavily influenced by Meridian media; Smith County is an area heavily influenced by Meridian media; therefore, Larry Fisher cannot receive a fair trial in Smith County. The decision to grant or deny a motion for a change of venue, of course, is ordinarily for the sound discretion of the trial judge. E.g., Fisher, 481 So.2d at 215; Winters v. State, 473 So.2d 452, 457 (Miss. 1985); Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 339 (Miss. 1985). The record fails to disclose any situation remotely resembling the state of affairs we found intolerable in the Weathers' trial. As our first Fisher opinion documented, both the print and broadcast media in Meridian were saturated with stories of the highway crimes. Judge Robertson remarked: The coverage was so extensive that in the proceedings on voir dire, some ten and one half months after Fisher's arrest, every one of the prospective jurors had heard of the case, a fact almost unprecedented in this Court's recent experience. 481 So.2d at 220. Fisher's showing of the media coverage in Smith County is feeble indeed. He could produce only one television station with a minuscule 8% of the Smith County market, and two radio stations capable of being heard in the county  by how many people no one knows. Obviously, this is poles apart from the kind of coverage to which Fisher was exposed in Meridian. In Smith County, only five members of the venire had heard of the case, and none of those five wound up on the jury panel. In short, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion.