Opinion ID: 1775339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court err in denying defendant a postponement of the trial due to adverse publicity?

Text: Counsel for Mary Beth insists that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant a postponement of this trial. The request for a delay centers on a series of publications in the Daily Herald, a newspaper in the Hancock County area. These random articles discuss the area of sexual abuse of children. With these articles in mind, counsel for Mary Beth asserts, Time would have helped to place prospective jurors in a different frame of mind... . Id. Therein, counsel urges that the court's actions were highly prejudicial to the defendant. See McClendon v. State, 335 So.2d 887 (Miss. 1976). The trial court on March 5, 1986 entered an order denying the motion for continuance. A subsequent renewal of the same motion was made as follows: In this case, comes now the defendant and moves the court for continuance in this cause for reason that many of the jurors on the panel indicated and stated that the articles appearing in The Daily Herald had been read, and carefully read by them and same had been submitted in a previous hearing. It is the opinion of the counsel that at this time the case being heard would be prejudiced to the defendant. I'm renewing my motion. Upon considering the foregoing statement, the trial court overruled this motion. The authority cited by the defendant supporting her request for a continuance was McClendon, supra . This case is distinguishable, and does not arise to a factual circumstance requiring reversal. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195 (Miss. 1985), Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203 (Miss. 1985).