Opinion ID: 2639377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Pretrial coverage of the crimes and change of venue

Text: The district court denied Floyd's motion for a change of venue. He claims that this was error because jurors were biased by the extensive and prominent coverage of his case by the print and broadcast media in Las Vegas. The State does not dispute that the media coverage of the case was massive. It simply points out that Floyd presents no evidence that this coverage resulted in bias on the part of any juror. NRS 174.455(1) provides that a criminal action may be removed from the court in which it is pending, on application of the defendant or state, on the ground that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the indictment, information or complaint is pending. Whether to change venue is within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. [8] A defendant seeking to change venue must not only present evidence of inflammatory pretrial publicity but must demonstrate actual bias on the part of the jury empaneled. [9] Even where pretrial publicity has been pervasive, this court has upheld the denial of motions for change of venue where the jurors assured the district court during voir dire that they would be fair and impartial in their deliberations. [10] Floyd does not point to evidence that any empaneled juror was biased and does not even refer to the voir dire of the prospective jurors. Review of the voir dire shows that when asked about pretrial publicity, the jurors who were ultimately empaneled indicated that it would not influence their decision. It appears that every juror also expressed a willingness to consider sentences other than death in the event of a guilty verdict. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a change of venue.