Opinion ID: 1930879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: whether pretrial and trial publicity denied king a fair trial.

Text: ś 28. King argues that he was denied a fair trial because of the extensive media coverage. However, due to the pretrial publicity in Walthall County, the State did not oppose and the trial judge granted King's motion for a change of venue from Walthall to Franklin County. Although King cites the failure to grant another change of venue, he has not cited to any further request for a change of venue, and this Court has found none. We can only consider questions that have been tried and passed upon by the court from which the appeal is taken. Leverett v. State, 197 So.2d at 890. Accord, Patterson v. State, 594 So.2d 606, 609 (Miss.1992). The trial judge cannot be held in error for failing to rule on a motion that was never brought to his attention. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred. ś 29. Moreover, the State submits that this issue is procedurally barred because King has again failed to assert any error committed by the trial judge. Indeed, King admits that procedurally the Circuit Judge did all that was required. However, he concludes that, in the end, it came up short. Because King has failed to allege any error by the trial court, and because he has admitted that the trial court did all that was required, this issue has been specifically waived. ś 30. Alternatively, the issue is without merit. A change of venue requires that a defendant be tried in an atmosphere in which public opinion is not saturated by bias, passion or prejudice against him. Seals v. State, 208 Miss. 236, 44 So.2d 61, 67 (1950). King argues that everyone in Southwest Mississippi had heard about the case. Indeed, King asserts that 30 of the 73 potential venire had shown knowledge of the case. However, the record reveals that only two had made up their minds and stated that they could not fairly try the case, and they were both stricken for cause. ś 31. In Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 66-67 (Miss.1998), this Court affirmed a finding that the jury was impartial because the panel members were asked repeatedly by the trial judge, the State's attorneys, and Gray's attorneys if they could be fair and impartial[, and there was] nothing in the record to indicate that the jurors were not fair and impartial. When King raised this issue in his post-trial motion, the trial court denied it, stating the following: The defendants received a fair and impartial trial. There was newspaper publicity of the case in every county in the State of Mississippi because the Jackson Clarion Ledger newspapers are circulated in every county. There was absolutely no pretrial publicity, however, in the Franklin County Advocate, the only newspaper published in Franklin County, Mississippi. The Court questioned the jury every day as to any newspaper that they may have seen or television news report that they might have heard and each time, each member of the jury advised the Court every day that there had been absolutely no contact by anyone regarding the trial and that no one had tried to get around them and discuss the trial. There was no trial publicity during the pendency of the action that was received by any member of the jury. Thus, the record supports the conclusion that the trial judge did everything requested of him to prevent outside influences on the jury. Indeed, as King points out in his brief, the trial judge took the exceptional step of sealing numerous hearing and closing the court file. And again, as King argues in his brief, procedurally the Circuit Judge did all that was required. He certainly did all that was requested. ś 32. Beyond speculation and unsupported assertions, King has presented no concrete evidence establishing that adverse public opinion was prejudicial to his case. A reviewing court does not act upon innuendo and unsupported representation of fact, Gerrard v. State, 619 So.2d 212, 219 (Miss.1993), or upon assertions in briefs, but is bound by the matters contained in the official record. Saucier v. State, 328 So.2d 355, 357 (Miss.1976). King's failure to timely bring his concerns to the attention of the trial judge, and his failure to include evidence of the prejudice he now claims, constitute a waiver of this issue. ś 33. This assignment is without merit.