Opinion ID: 889643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Foundational Change-of-Venue Principles

Text: ¶ 17 A criminal charge brought under Montana law must be filed in the county where the offense was committed, and the place of trial must be in that same county, unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 46-3-110(1), -111(1), MCA; see also Mont. Const. art. II, § 24 (the accused has the right to be tried by a jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed). Analogously, a federal prosecution occurs in the state and district where the crime was committed. Skilling v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2913, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3, and amend. VI). ¶ 18 At the same time, however, Article II, Sections 17 and 24 secure to the defendant the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. See State v. Allen, 2010 MT 214, ¶ 25, 357 Mont. 495, 241 P.3d 1045; In re T.J.F., 2011 MT 28, ¶ 26, 359 Mont. 213, 248 P.3d 804; State v. Dryman, 127 Mont. 579, 588, 269 P.2d 796, 800 (1954). The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments likewise guarantee a fair trial by a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors. Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500, 507 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, if there exists in the county in which the prosecution is pending such prejudice that a fair trial cannot be had in the county, then the court is required (upon motion by the defense or the prosecution) to transfer the cause to another county, direct that a jury be selected from another county, or take any other action designed to ensure that a fair trial may be had. Section 46-13-203, MCA. Similarly, in the federal context, the court must transfer the proceeding to another district if so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there. Fed.R.Crim.P. 21(a); see also Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2913 (The Constitution's place-of-trial prescriptions ... do not impede transfer of the proceeding to a different district at the defendant's request if extraordinary local prejudice will prevent a fair triala `basic requirement of due process.'). ¶ 19 As these rules make clear, the prerequisite for obtaining a change of venue on the ground of prejudice is that there is such prejudice as will prevent a fair and impartial trial in the current venue. There are various forms the prejudice might takesuch as a community uproar or too many people in the community with close ties to the victimbut the ground most commonly advanced for a fair trial change of venue is that adverse pretrial publicity precludes selection of an unbiased jury. Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure vol. 4, § 16.3(b), 806 (3d ed., Thomson/West 2007). In this regard, Kingman points out that prejudice may be presumed in certain circumstances. Indeed, as explained below, a motion for change of venue may be founded on presumed prejudice or on actual prejudice, and different standards apply depending on which sort of prejudice is claimed. This distinction is recognized explicitly in federal caselaw but, until now, has been essentially implicit in our own cases.