Opinion ID: 2223601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: affidavit and motion for change of venue from the judge

Text: Comes now the Defendant, TIMOTHY SAMPLE, who being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the Defendant in the above entitled cause. 2. That he cannot have a fair and impartial trial of said cause before the Honorable ARDEN W. ZOBROSKY, Judge of this Court, on account of the bias and prejudice against said Defendant, which said bias and prejudice this Affiant says now exists. 3. That said bias and prejudice of said Judge against said Defendant was not discovered until the fifth day of May, 1960, and that this Affidavit was filed at the first opportunity after the discovery of said bias and prejudice which prevents the Defendant from having a fair and impartial trial before the said Judge. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays the Court for a Change of Venue From The Judge in the within cause and for all other just and proper relief in the premises. The above affidavit, in our opinion, is the first affidavit filed by the appellee, is sufficient in law and, as appellant admits in its brief, would probably have been sufficient to require the change of judge. In a criminal case, the law appears to be that there is an absolute right to a change of judge for recently learned prejudice upon a proper affidavit for change, even though not filed with the statutory ten day period of time. Beck v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 231, 171 N.E.2d 696. It appears that the legislative intent was to limit the number of actual changes, rather than to reduce the number of motions which could be submitted. In civil actions, where there is more discretion allowed the trial court, we have held as follows: ... But relators' right to a change of venue is not exhausted by having filed one motion that does not comply with the rule, and no reason is seen why a proper motion, with an affidavit justifying the failure to file the motion before the causes were set for trial, may not now be filed if the facts justify it; and the filing of such motion now would require the granting of the change. State ex rel. Thompson v. Barce, Judge [3] (1937), 212 Ind. 595, 598, 10 N.E.2d 612. Having determined that the only application filed by the appellee in conformity to the statute was proper, it is therefore our opinion that the action of the appellant Judge in denying appellee's affidavit for change of judge was reversible error. That being the case, the action of the Grant Circuit Court in mandating appellant to grant the change of venue was proper and that judgment is hereby affirmed. Achor, Bobbitt and Landis, JJ., concur. Arterburn, C.J., concurs in result. NOTE.  Reported in 185 N.E.2d 525.