Opinion ID: 1536009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reconsideration of Change of Venue Order

Text: At the conclusion of the change of venue motion, the State requested a hearing on the location chosen by the court. It had not yet presented evidence on demographics and wanted the opportunity to provide information about other counties as potential locations. The court signed the order changing venue to Camden, but permitted the State to submit a motion for reconsideration of the place of venue. On November 21, 1995, the State filed for reconsideration of the Order changing venue to Camden. The State requested that the court empanel a foreign jury from Camden in lieu of changing trial venue. In the alternative, the State asked the court to move the trial to a county more convenient to the victim's family (suggesting Burlington, Middlesex or Hunterdon Counties). The State argued that the court should reconsider its holding in light of the constitutional rights of the victim's parents. The Victim's Rights Amendment, the State argued, required the court to take into account the extreme hardship that would result if the Kankas had to travel to Camden County daily to watch defendant's trial. The State submitted affidavits from Mr. and Mrs. Kanka stressing the emotional and financial burdens that would be placed on the couple if the trial were moved to Camden. The State originally had not argued that point in response to defendant's motion. The court granted the State's motion and ordered that a foreign jury be empaneled in Mercer County from Camden County. Although still concluding that [t]here is a realistic likelihood of prejudice from pretrial publicity in Mercer County[,] the court recognized the importance of protecting the victims' rights. Changing venue would violate the Victim's Rights Amendment of the N.J. Const., art. I, ¶22, as it would impose great hardship on the victim's parents. The court further observed that the neighborhood in which the Camden County courthouse sits is dangerous, thereby taking a greater toll on the victim's family and other members of the public who wished to attend the trial. The savings in time and costs also would be significant. Finally, the court stressed the competency of the staff and security at the Mercer County courthouse, noting that the administrators' experience in handling the Harris trial would ensure that the proceedings would be adequately safeguarded. The court did not see any diminishment of the defendant's rights resulting from a reversal of the decision to change venue. Defendant now asserts that the trial court's decision to reconsider the change of venue motion was incorrect because: (1) interlocutory motions of reconsideration in criminal matters are not allowed; and (2) the Victim's Rights Amendment does not apply to the question of whether there should be a change of venue or an empanelment of a foreign jury. Defendant claims those errors violated due process and his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Rule 1:7-4 provides that [u]pon motion made not later than 10 days after service of the final order or judgment ..., the court may grant a rehearing.... [3] However, Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 3 on Rule 1:7-4[1] (1995) states: It is also important to note that the 10day provision of both this rule and R. 4:49-2 apply only to final orders and judgments. Reconsideration of interlocutory orders, up to the time of final judgment is entered, is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court to be exercised in the interests of justice. (emphasis added). [4] Defendant relies on dicta in State v. Fitzsimmons, 286 N.J.Super. 141, 147, 668 A. 2d 453 (App.Div.1995), rev'd o.g., 143 N.J. 482, 672 A. 2d 1165 (1996) to argue that reconsideration motions are inapplicable to criminal matters. In that case, the Appellate Division stated that [t]here is no corollary rule [governing motions for reconsideration] applicable to practice in the criminal courts. Ibid. We disagree. This Court has never questioned the appropriateness of interlocutory motions to reconsider in criminal matters. A motion to reconsider an interlocutory order, such as a change of venue, may be filed in the court's discretion up to the time the final judgment is entered.
Defendant also contends that the trial court improperly considered the impact changing venue to Camden County would have on the victim's family, both financially and emotionally. The Victim's Rights Amendment was approved by New Jersey voters in 1991. That Amendment provides that: A victim of a crime shall be treated with fairness, compassion and respect by the criminal justice system. A victim of a crime shall not be denied the right to be present at public judicial proceedings except when ... the victim is properly sequestered in accordance with the law.... A victim of a crime shall be entitled to those rights and remedies as may be provided by the Legislature.