Opinion ID: 2516990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant's motion for a change of venue?

Text: ¶ 9 Article 1, Section 10 of the Wyoming Constitution provides that criminal defendants are entitled to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. In turn, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-7-102(a) (LexisNexis 2007) requires that [e]very criminal case shall be tried in the county in which the indictment or offense charged is found, except as otherwise provided by law. Finally, W.R.Cr.P. 18 provides that, [e]xcept as otherwise permitted by statute or by these rules, the prosecution shall take place in the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. . . . Notwithstanding these mandates, W.R.Cr.P. 21(a) allows for trial elsewhere in the event of local prejudice that is too great for the defendant to receive a fair trial: (a) Prejudice within county.  Upon timely motion of the defendant, the court shall transfer the proceeding as to that defendant to another county, but only if the court is satisfied that there exists within the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county. [¶ 10] At the end of the voir dire questioning, but before the exercise of peremptory challenges, the appellant filed a motion for change of venue, which motion contained the following listed arguments: (1) so great a prejudice existed locally against the appellant that she could not receive a fair trial; (2) there had been extensive pre-trial publicity about the case in the local media; (3) denial of the appellant's earlier motion for a jury questionnaire prevented earlier discovery of the extent of the prejudice; (4) until voir dire, the appellant did not discover the depth of knowledge and the intensity of opinions that would be held by prospective jurors; (5) failure to change venue would violate the appellant's constitutional rights to a fair trial; and (6) it would be in the best interests of justice to change the venue of the trial. During the hearing on the motion in chambers, defense counsel emphasized the large number of prospective jurors who held strong opinions about the appellant's guilt as a result of the pre-trial publicity. The district court said the following in denying the motion: THE COURT: All right. In considering the fact that we've got 31 who say they can grant the defendant the presumption of innocence and despite some last minute cross questioning or final questioning by the defense, no one even seemed to raise an eyebrow or an arm with this last questioning. I think we have a panel that can fairly hear this case and that's why I'm going to deny the motion for change of venue. [¶ 11] We have identified the following standard for reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for change of venue: We review the denial of a motion for change of venue under an abuse of discretion standard, meaning we will not interfere with the trial court's decision unless the trial court acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Nixon v. State, 994 P.2d 324, 326-27 (Wyo.1999). The party moving for change of venue has the burden of showing actual prejudice in the minds of the jurors so great that a fair trial cannot be obtained. Id. at 327. . . . . This Court has adopted a two-part test for determining whether a change of venue should be granted after voir dire because of pre-trial publicity: `First, the nature and extent of the publicity must be considered; second, the difficulty or ease in selecting a jury must be considered along with the amount of prejudice which actually appears during voir dire examination.' Sides [v. State], 963 P.2d [227,] 231 [(Wyo. 1998)] (quoting Murry [v. State], 713 P.2d [202,] 208 [(Wyo.1986)]). Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, ¶¶ 26-27, 67 P.3d 1207, 1220 (Wyo.2003). Prejudice will not be presumed from mere local publicity; such presumption will rarely be invoked and only in extreme circumstances. Sanchez v. State, 2006 WY 116, ¶ 13, 142 P.3d 1134, 1139 (Wyo.2006). To require venue to be changed, pre-trial publicity must be so inflammatory as practically to dictate the community's opinion. Id. [¶ 12] We will somewhat summarily affirm the district court's denial of this motion for change of venue, for two reasons: first, the nature and extent of the pre-trial publicity has not been shown; and second, an impartial jury was seated with relatively little difficulty. No newspaper articles, or other forms of pre-trial publicity were presented below, or in this Court, so we do not know that such publicity was anything but factual, and factual accounts are not, in and of themselves, prejudicial. Collins v. State, 589 P.2d 1283, 1289 (Wyo.1979). This case is similar to Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202, 208 (Wyo.1986), where we said the following: It is to be expected that most of the jury panel will have heard about a sensational case, but there is no requirement that a juror be ignorant of the facts and issues involved in a case. Wilcox v. State, [670 P.2d 1116, 1119 (Wyo.1983)]. The totality of the circumstances must indicate the presence of improper prejudice. Weddle v. State, Wyo., 621 P.2d 231 (1980). The question focuses on whether a fair jury was ultimately seated. Shaffer v. State, [640 P.2d 88, 103 (Wyo.1982)]. We recently reaffirmed these basic principles in Pote v. State, Wyo., 695 P.2d 617 (1985). [¶ 13] A fair and impartial jury was seated in this case when the requisite number of jurors, despite the existence of apparently substantial pre-trial publicity, declared themselves able to set aside anything they had read or heard about the case, and able to set aside any opinions they had previously reached, and declared themselves able to determine the matter based solely upon the evidence they heard in court and the instructions given them by the judge. We affirm the denial of the motion for change of venue.