Opinion ID: 1891447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the court erred in changing venue to rankin county and in denying haynes' motion to quash the venire.

Text: ¶ 5. Haynes first argues that the trial should not have been transferred to Rankin County, a county where black citizens constitute only seventeen percent of the demographic, as compared to Attala County, whose black citizens make up forty percent of the demographic. Instead, Haynes argues his trial should have been moved to a county with similar racial demographics as Attala County. ¶ 6. However, a defendant has no right to a change of venue to a jurisdiction with certain racial demographics. Mitchell v. State, 886 So.2d 704, 709 (Miss. 2004) (citing De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So.2d 547, 597 (Miss.1997)); see also Simon v. State, 633 So.2d 407, 412 (Miss. 1993), vacated on other grounds, 513 U.S. 956, 115 S.Ct. 413, 130 L.Ed.2d 329 (1994), on remand, 679 So.2d 617 (Miss.1996). Furthermore, [m]otions for change of venue are left to the trial court's sound discretion. Swann v. State, 806 So.2d 1111, 1116 (Miss.2002) (citing Davis v. State, 767 So.2d 986, 993 (Miss.2000); Hickson v. State, 707 So.2d 536, 542 (Miss. 1997)). ¶ 7. Here, the circuit judge moved the trial to Rankin County, after considering factors such as where Haynes could obtain a fair and impartial trial, away from pretrial publicity. The circuit judge also considered courthouse facilities, proximity from the transferor county, and the location of witnesses. Based on Mitchell and the trial judge's findings, we find no abuse of discretion. ¶ 8. Haynes also argues that the circuit judge improperly denied his motion to quash the venire which was only twelve percent black, when Rankin County's demographic is seventeen percent black. In order to show a violation of the right to an impartial jury representing a fair cross-section of the community, a defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a `distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process. Gray v. State, 887 So.2d 158, 165 (Miss. 2004) (citing Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 477 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 9. Here, the venire from which the jury was selected was produced by a computer which randomly selected names from the voter rolls of Rankin County. Haynes made no objection to the selection process, nor did he present any evidence indicating systematic exclusion of blacks in the jury-selection process. As the circuit judge noted, Haynes objected only to the results of the selection process, not the manner in which the jury was drawn. Because Haynes has failed to make a showing of any of the prima facie elements, this Court finds this argument is without merit.