Opinion ID: 1329980
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the fair trial question

Text: The appellant claims that the trial court deprived him of his right to a fair and impartial trial by denying his motions for a change of venue based on prejudicial pretrial publicity, and refusing to dismiss a prospective juror for cause.
The appellant's first motion for a change of venue was heard on February 11, 1980, six weeks before trial. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that the robbery had received extensive coverage by the media, which continued through the time of the hearing. Four representatives of various news media testified that although it would be difficult to find twelve jurors in Lewis County who had never heard of the robbery, they were not aware of any hostile sentiment in the community toward the defendants. Two of them testified that this case may have received more publicity than similar criminal cases because of numerous legal actions brought by the defendants against law enforcement officers. On oral argument, the appellant conceded that the trial court properly denied the motion, finding no showing of a present hostile sentiment in the county which would deprive appellant of a trial before a fair and impartial jury. On March 20, 1980, Thurman Franklin Dye was convicted of the armed robbery by a Lewis County jury. On March 21, 1980 the appellant's trial began with an extensive and exhaustive individual voir dire of the jury panel, from which the members of the Dye jury had been removed. At the conclusion of voir dire and after consideration of peremptory strikes, appellant renewed his motion for a change of venue, on the grounds that ten jurors had been struck because of prejudice, every one had heard about Dye's conviction, and all had been exposed to some kind of media coverage about the matter. The court denied the motion as being untimely and entirely without foundation. The appellant contends that prejudice had so infected the jury that permitting the Audia trial to proceed in Lewis County, following so closely the conviction of Dye, was prejudicial error. We disagree. Widespread publicity, of itself, does not require change of venue, and neither does proof that prejudice exists against an accused, unless it appears that the prejudice against him is so great that he cannot get a fair trial. Syl. pt. 1, State v. Gangwer, W.Va., 286 S.E.2d 389 (1982). The transcript of the voir dire shows that although eleven prospective jurors were dismissed for cause, only five of them had formed an opinion as to the appellant's guilt. In any event, all of those who expressed any prejudice were excused. The court was satisfied that the remaining jurors were fair, just and impartial, and the record supports that conclusion. We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant a change of venue. The appellant's contention that the court abused its discretion in failing to summon jurors from other counties is likewise without merit.
During the individual voir dire of prospective juror Randall L. Hughes, the prosecuting attorney informed the court that he represented Hughes, along with 30 to 40 other members of his family, in a partition suit then pending in the circuit court. The prosecutor had never met Hughes, but had only dealt directly with his sister; apparently Hughes was not even aware that the prosecutor was involved. Defense counsel moved to strike Hughes for cause because he was a client of the prosecutor. The court denied the motion, finding no cause shown for excusing him. The appellant contends that a juror who is in an attorney-client relationship with the prosecutor at the time of trial could not, as a matter of law, sit impartially in a trial in which his lawyer represents the State. [3] He claims that the court's failure to strike Hughes should constitute reversible error, and cites State v. Dye, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 323 (1981); and State v. West, 157 W.Va. 209, 200 S.E.2d 859 (1973). In Dye and West, supra, we held that it was reversible error for the court to fail to discharge prospective jurors who were employed by prosecutorial or law enforcement agencies. In State v. Pratt, W.Va., 244 S.E.2d 227 (1978), we extended the rule to jurors who were related to, or close friends of, law enforcement officers; and in State v. Payne, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 72 (1981), to close friends of the prosecutor. See also State v. Helmick, W.Va., 286 S.E.2d 245 (1982). We have not yet considered the situation presented here, where the prospective juror is a client of the prosecuting attorney at the time of trial. Such a relationship is not one of the grounds for disqualification set forth in our statutes, W.Va.Code, 52-1-2 [1957] and 56-6-12 [1923], [4] nor is it one of our common law causes of prima facie disqualification from jury service. See State v. Riley, 151 W.Va. 364, 151 S.E.2d 308, 320 (1966); State v. Dushman, 79 W.Va. 747, 91 S.E. 809 (1917). [5] In addition, we find no other jurisdiction which has held such a relationship to be prima facie grounds for disqualification of a prospective juror. [6] We find no prejudice, per se, in the attorney-client relationship between the prosecutor and Hughes, particularly where, as here, the representation is of a class of people and he has little, if any, contact with the particular individual who is the juror. We therefore hold that where a prospective juror is one of a class of persons represented by the prosecuting attorney at the time of trial, but there has been no actual contact between that juror and the prosecutor, the existence of the attorney-client relationship alone is not prima facie grounds for disqualification of that juror. The true test as to whether a juror is qualified to serve on the panel is whether without bias or prejudice he can render a verdict solely on the evidence under the instructions of the court. Syl. pt. 1, State v. Wilson, 157 W.Va. 1036, 207 S.E.2d 174 (1974). Hughes' responses during voir dire revealed no bias or prejudice on his part, and showed that he would be able to render a fair and impartial verdict solely on the evidence presented to him. We have already noted the limited contact, if any, between Hughes and the prosecutor before this trial. Perhaps, the more prudent course by the trial court would have been to excuse Hughes. We hold, however, that its failure to do so in this case was not an abuse of discretion and was not reversible error.