Opinion ID: 2745403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Roeder's appellate counsel acknowledges that, pursuant to State v. Higgenbotham, 271 Kan. 582, 591, 23 P.3d 874 (2001), this issue would be reviewed for an abuse of discretion and that the defendant would carry the burden to show prejudice. Recently, in State v. Carr, 300 Kan. ___, 331 P.3d 544, 596 (2014), we clarified that a change of venue challenge under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on pretrial publicity is viewed through two different lenses: 'The first context occurs where the pretrial publicity is so pervasive and prejudicial that we cannot expect to find an unbiased jury pool in the community. We presume prejudice before trial in those cases, and a venue change is necessary.' [Goss v. Nelson,] 439 F.3d [621,] 628 [10th Cir. 2006]. 'In such cases, a trial court is permitted to transfer venue without conducting voir dire of prospective jurors.' House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010, 1023-24 (10th Cir. 2008). The second context, 'actual prejudice,' occurs 'where the effect of pretrial publicity manifested at jury selection is so substantial as to taint the entire jury pool.' Goss, 439 F.3d at 628; see Gardner v. Galetka, 568 F.3d 862, 888 (10th Cir. 2009). 'In cases of actual prejudice, the voir dire testimony and the record of publicity [must] reveal the kind of wave of public passion that would have made a fair trial unlikely by the jury that was impaneled as a whole. [Citation omitted.]' Hatch, 527 F.3d at 1024. A presumed prejudice challenge is subject to a mixed standard of review. The court first looks for substantial competent evidence in the record to support the factors that must be considered to determine presumed prejudice. See Carr, 300 Kan. at ___, 331 P.3d at 599-603 (discussing Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 177 L. Ed. 2d 619 [2010] factors). But the overall weighing of the Skilling factors results in a conclusion of law that is subject to a de novo standard. Carr, 300 Kan. at ___, 331 P.3d at 599. On the other hand, the actual prejudice analysis is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 300 Kan. at ___, 331 P.3d at 605. 11