Opinion ID: 1678274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal to Grant Change of Venue.

Text: The first issue on appeal concerns the trial court's refusal to grant defendant's motion for change of venue. Defendant asserts the intense media coverage of the crime and its investigation prevented the selection of a fair and impartial jury. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(10)(b) requires a trial court to grant a motion for change of venue if it determines that such degree of prejudice exists in the county in which the trial is to be had that there is a substantial likelihood a fair and impartial trial cannot be preserved with a jury selected from that county.... To secure reversal of a conviction based on the denial of a change of venue, a defendant has the burden to show either actual prejudice on the part of the jury or ... that the publicity attending the case was so pervasive and inflammatory that prejudice must be presumed. State v. Spargo, 364 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Iowa 1985). A trial court's decision rejecting a motion for change of venue will not be overturned unless this court finds an abuse of discretion. State v. Wagner, 410 N.W.2d 207, 210 (Iowa 1987). The pretrial publicity in the present case was extensive, prolonged, contained some inaccurate information, and referred to some evidence not admitted at defendant's trial. Notwithstanding the circumstances which have been shown concerning this publicity, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for change of venue. In denying the motion, the court stated that it was in a position to allow a careful selection of a local jury to insure the defendants receive a fair trial. The court's order indicated that voir dire would be transcribed and that it would reconsider the necessity of a venue change at the time of or following jury selection. When defendant's motion for change of venue was renewed at the completion of jury selection, the court again denied the motion stating that in [its] opinion it seem[ed] like jury selection went very well.... [W]e had a lot of uninformed people. This conclusion regarding jury selection is, we believe, supported by the record. Thirty-nine prospective jurors were questioned by counsel. Defendant challenged four jurors for cause. Only two of these challenges were based on exposure to pretrial publicity. All challenges for cause which the defendant lodged were sustained by the district court. Exposure to news accounts does not by itself create a substantial likelihood of prejudice in the minds of prospective jurors. State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Iowa 1982); State v. Lanscak, 404 N.W.2d 192, 193 (Iowa App.1987). The crucial determination is whether, as a result of pretrial publicity or for other reasons, a substantial number of prospective jurors hold such fixed opinions on the merits of the case that they cannot impartially judge the issues to be determined at trial. State v. Gavin, 360 N.W.2d 817, 819 (Iowa 1985); State v. Ware, 338 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Iowa 1983); State v. Nebinger, 412 N.W.2d 180, 184 (Iowa App.1987). The reported voir dire questioning in the present case fails to indicate that this type of pervasive prejudice existed so as to poison the available pool of jurors. The motions for change of venue were properly denied.