Opinion ID: 1720516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unconstitutionality of Sec. 956.03 (3), Stats.

Text: Appellant claims the change of venue statute is unconstitutional on several different grounds: First, that the statute, on its face, is a violation of due process as guaranteed by the Wisconsin and federal constitutions; second, that the face of the statute violates the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. And, finally, it is contended that the statute was unconstitutionally applied in this case. In all cases, the reason for the alleged unconstitutionality is the same, i.e., that the change of venue based on community prejudice is limited to felony cases. We think that there is a sufficient difference between a felony and a misdemeanor to warrant the distinction. . . . In most cases the place of imprisonment is different; the statute of limitations is twice as long for a felony as a misdemeanor; one charged with a felony is entitled to a preliminary hearing; the stigma of a felony is greater; and under the repeater statute, more severe penalties are authorized for felonies than for misdemeanors. . . . State ex rel. Gaynon v. Krueger (1966), 31 Wis. 2d 609, 620, 143 N. W. 2d 437. Moreover, it would be extremely unusual for a community as a whole to prejudge the guilt of any person charged with a misdemeanor. Ordinarily community prejudice arises when a particularly horrendous crime has been perpetrated. These are the only crimes that receive widespread and prolonged attention from the news media. But the general public just does not become incensed at the commission of a misdemeanor. The court also takes judicial notice of the vast number of misdemeanors that are prosecuted as opposed to felonies. As a matter of necessity, the prosecution of misdemeanors has been simplified as much as possible by the legislature. This is not because the legislature is not concerned with justice, but because society demands that efficiency in the administration of justice be given consideration along with absolute fairness. This court faced a decision similar to the one in this case in deciding whether an indigent accused of a misdemeanor was entitled to the assistance of a court-appointed attorney in his defense. At that time the court stated: A basic concern of this court must be to strive for greater fairness in the administration of criminal justice. This contemplates protection of the innocent from wrongful conviction, and a concern for the poor as well as for the affluent. A correlative consideration, nevertheless, must be to protect society from burdens that, if intolerable, might impair the administration of justice. Achieving the proper equilibrium between these important considerations inherently requires that standards be established, thus presenting a situation in which it is difficult to achieve an ideal result. State ex rel. Plutshack v. H&SS Department (1968), 37 Wis. 2d 713, 720, 155 N. W. 2d 549, 157 N. W. 2d 567. The court decided in the Plutshack Case that counsel should be provided for all indigent defendants who were charged with a crime which was punishable by a maximum sentence of more than six months' imprisonment. This was determined to be a reasonable cutoff point. It is also important to recognize that in deciding the Plutshack Case, the court was not faced with a statute which specifically denied the appointment of counsel to indigents charged with misdemeanors. On the contrary, the applicable statute, sec. 957.26, Stats., [2] had recently been amended [3] so that counsel could be provided in misdemeanor cases. Thus the court was free to adopt the six-month cutoff. However, in this case, the applicable statute specifies that a change of venue based on community prejudice shall only be permitted in felony cases. Were we free to adopt our own cutoff point, we would establish it at over six months, as we did in reference to the appointment of counsel. However, we are not willing to say that the cutoff point established by the legislature is necessarily arbitrary and capricious. The court is aware that two other jurisdictions have considered whether a change of venue based on community prejudice can be limited to felony cases. [4] Both decided it could not be without violating the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution. Those cases are not precedent for this court and their reasoning does not compel us to reach the same conclusion. [5] The United States Supreme Court held in Rideau v. Louisiana (1963), 373 U. S. 723, 83 Sup. Ct. 1417, 10 L. Ed. 2d 663, that a denial of a change of venue, under the circumstances of that case, [6] amounted to a denial of due process. That case is distinguishable on two grounds. First, it involved a felony, as does every other case in the area of change of venue which has been dealt with by the supreme court. Second, the defendant put into the record his proof of community prejudice which was at least likely to influence the jury. No record of community prejudice was ever made in this case. Appellant contends that because his motion for change of venue was denied, he had no opportunity to make a record of the community prejudice. This is simply not true. Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee to every accused the right to a fair and impartial trial. [7] A verdict from a prejudiced jury is void [8] whether or not a change of venue or a continuance was requested. [9] On motions after verdict or on a petition for habeas corpus, a person convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony can offer proof that he was denied his constitutional right of a fair and impartial trial. [10] The right to a fair and impartial trial is not synonymous with a change of venue. The only connection between a change of venue and a fair and impartial trial is that the former is one method of insuring the latter. Other methods of insuring a fair trial are voir dire proceedings and continuance. [11] The defendant here was not denied due process when his change of venue was denied because of the applicable statute. Should a rare case arise where community prejudice threatens to influence the verdict in a misdemeanor case, the defendant can rely on the antiseptic measures of continuance and voir dire proceedings. In the event that these measures are still not sufficient to provide an impartial jury, the verdict can be set aside after trial based on the denial of a fair and impartial trial. If the defendant in the present case feels that he was denied a fair and impartial trial (no such claim has been made to this court), the issue can be raised and evidence can be presented on a motion for a new trial based on a denial of a fair and impartial trial. [12]