Opinion ID: 1855709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Pretrial Publicity/ defendant's assignment of error number 9

Text: In this assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a change of venue based on the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case. The record shows defendant thrice moved for a change of venue. A hearing was held on this issue on June 17, 1997, contemporaneous with the motion to quash the venire. [4] Dr. Robert Davis, a clinical psychologist who was accepted by the court as an expert in statistics, testified about the results of two separate local telephone polls that he had conducted for the defense. The phone numbers selected to participate in the poll were selected by computer from a CD rom of the Baton Rouge telephone directory. The numbers were randomly selected from each of the four geographic areas in East Baton Rouge Parish. In the first poll, only 25% of the respondents remembered the crime without being cued, and no one could remember the name of the suspect. Davis felt that a change of venue was not warranted at the time of this poll. Davis conducted a second poll after the broadcast of a news show that erroneously reported defendant would be using a rap music defense. The poll indicated that 31% of those polled knew of this defense and had tended to believe defendant was guilty based on his alleged use of this defense. After hearing this testimony, the trial judge deferred his ruling until after jury selection. The motion was ultimately denied after the end of voir dire. A defendant is not entitled to a jury that is completely ignorant of his case. State v. Connolly, 96-1680 (La.7/1/97), 700 So.2d 810, citing State v. 25 Thompson, 516 So.2d 349 (La.1987), cert denied 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 180, 102 L.Ed.2d 149 (1988). Further, extensive knowledge in the community of either the crimes or the putative criminal is not sufficient by itself to render a trial unconstitutionally unfair. Connolly, 700 So.2d at 815, quoting Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 303, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2303, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Rather, a defendant seeking a change of venue must show that the extent of the prejudice in the minds of the community renders a fair trial impossible. State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503 (La.1985), cert denied, 474 U.S. 911, 106 S.Ct. 281, 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985). The defendant usually bears the burden of proving prejudice. State v. Williams, 96-1023 (La.1998), 708 So.2d 703. The trial judge has great discretion in ruling on a motion for change of venue, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of this discretion. Williams, 96-1023 at 23, 708 So.2d 728, quoting Wilson, 467 So.2d at 512. Both this court and the United States Supreme Court have often examined the number of jurors excused for cause on the basis of already having a set opinion about the case to determine if there is prejudice in the mind of the community, as [t]he length to which the trial court must go in order to select jurors who appear to be impartial is another factor relevant in evaluating those jurors' assurances of impartiality. Williams, 96-1023 at 23-24, 708 So.2d 728, quoting Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 803, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2037, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). This is not, however, a bright line test, and there is no certain number or percentage of challenged jurors that will ensure the defendant a change of venue. Rather, whether a defendant should have been granted a change of venue under this standard is usually analyzed by comparison to other cases. In the instant case, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the change of venue. The record reveals a thorough examination of the prospective jurors during voir dire. Sixty-four prospective jurors were examined, and most of those who were asked if they knew of the crime responded affirmatively; however, only five prospective jurors were excused for cause on the basis that they had already formed a set opinion about defendant's guilt. Most of those who had heard of the crime had only vague recollections of the facts and could not remember either details or defendant's name. This case thus seems more similar to those cases in which the change of venue was properly denied than those in which the denial was found to be reversible error. [5] This assignment of error thus lacks merit.