Opinion ID: 1782493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial judge abuse his discretion in denying swann's motion for a change of venue?

Text: ¶ 17. Swann argues that because of the publicity and media coverage, the judge should have granted his request for a change of venue. Swann's motion for a change of venue was supported by affidavits from three citizens who stated that Swann could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Itawamba County. Swann also called Mary Bishop, a convenience store manager in Itawamba County, to testify that she came in contact with many people who had heard about the case. Area newspapers and several videotapes containing news reports regarding the case were introduced into evidence at the trial. Some of the reports indicated that Swann had prior felony charges. Swann successfully created a presumption that it was impossible for a fair trial to be had in the existing venue. ¶ 18. The State attempted to rebut that presumption through a pre-trial hearing conducted on September 1, 1998. Five witnesses, Itawamba County Supervisors from different districts, testified that Swann could receive a fair trial in Itawamba County. After hearing the arguments of both parties and reviewing the news articles and videotapes, the circuit judge took the matter under advisement. The trial began about six months later, on March 15, 1999. ¶ 19. The State can rebut the presumption that the defendant could not receive a fair trial by proving from voir dire that the trial court impaneled an impartial jury. Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 336 (Miss.1997). During voir dire, the trial judge questioned the eighty-eight prospective jurors concerning whether they heard anything about this case in the news or from any other source. Swann's trial attorney also had the opportunity to inquire about the pre-trial publicity during voir dire. At the close of voir dire, the circuit judge again asked the prospective jurors whether anyone knew about the facts of this case from any source of information. The circuit judge was satisfied that Swann could receive a fair trial; therefore, he denied the motion for change of venue. ¶ 20. Motions for a change of venue are left to the trial court's sound discretion. Davis v. State, 767 So.2d 986, 993 (Miss.2000); Hickson v. State, 707 So.2d 536, 542 (Miss.1997). Based upon a review of the record, this Court is also satisfied that Swann could and did receive a fair trial. This case passes the two-part test found in Holland which looks at the extent of media coverage and its inflammatory nature, as well as the effect upon the prospective jurors. Holland, 705 So.2d at 336-37. Those jurors who stated that their knowledge would affect the verdict were removed, and those jurors who remained stated that their knowledge would not prevent them from serving impartially. Id. ¶ 21. Swann does not argue that the media coverage and publicity was inflammatory, and based upon a review of the record, the news coverage appears objective. As for the extent of the coverage, the case spanned a period of twelve years and received a fair amount of attention due to the time that passed before Swann was charged with the crime. However, over six months of silence passed between the news coverage and the trial. Furthermore, the publicity was not widespread and did not reach massive or epidemic proportions. Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148, 1153 (Miss.1992). Based upon a review of the record, Swann received a fair and impartial jury. Therefore, this Court finds that the circuit judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue.