Opinion ID: 1286632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Trial Court's Refusal to Grant Reutter's Motion to Dismiss or Change of Venue Due to Pre-trial Publicity

Text: Reutter moved for dismissal of the charges against him because of unfair and prejudicial comments about his case by Attorney General Mark Meierhenry. In lieu of dismissal, Reutter sought a change of venue. Reutter's motion also requested that the trial court order state personnel to discontinue attempting to affect the testimony of witnesses or to cause untrue and unfair publicity about defendant by the false suggestions and publication that defendant, Reutter was a party to other unnamed and unproven crimes. Reutter's motion stemmed from events following the untimely death of named co-conspirator Dr. Michael Kotas. Kotas was found dead in his home on the morning of January 27, 1984, approximately ten days before his scheduled trial. Later that day, Attorney General Mark Meierhenry appeared at a press conference in Sioux Falls at which he commented on an apparent plea bargain between the state and Kotas. In an article appearing in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader the following day, January 28, 1984, it was reported that Attorney General Meierhenry had stated at the press conference that Kotas was expected to enter a plea of guilty Friday (January 27). The article further reported that: Although Meierhenry didn't indicate whether the plea bargain included having Kotas testify against others in the cocaine investigation, he said `I would never accept a plea negotiation unless the person who pled guilty bared his soul.' Meierhenry said he was unable to say what, if anything, Kotas could add to the investigation. `Only a fool would say there's not some connection between Dr. Kotas and our ongoing cocaine investigation in South Dakota,' he said. Reutter introduced this Argus Leader story, in addition to several others covering a period of time from January 28, 1984, to February 14, 1984, in support of his motion to dismiss. Reutter also introduced a video-tape copy of four news broadcasts occurring from January 27, 1984 to February 16, 1984. Reutter argues that although he was to be tried separately from Kotas, the Attorney General's public comments concerning an alleged plea bargain between the state and Kotas resulted in a denial of his right to receive a fair trial. The trial court summarized its findings respecting the evidence submitted by Reutter at the pretrial hearing: In the evidence produced at the hearing, only two references of significance mentioned any plea negotiations. The first is in the Argus Leader article of January 28 where a somewhat cryptic reference was made to plea negotiations pending at the time of Mr. Kotas' death. Several days later in the same publication, Kotas' local counsel issued a `rebuttal' statement denying the existence of any plea negotiations. No reference was made in the t.v. newscast about plea negotiations. There was never any specific reference in the newspaper articles about terms or conditions of the plea negotiations .... While the articles and news broadcasts were widespread, the court cannot find, upon a fair observation of them, that such reporting was anything but accurate. There was no statement on the possible guilt of this defendant. There does not appear to be any scheme or design to influence public opinion about the upcoming trial. Most of the reporting dealt with the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kotas' untimely demise, findings of law enforcement officials and actual testimony from the coroner's inquest. No reporter even hinted at Mr. Reutter's possible guilt in any fashion prior to the present motion being filed. The content of that article merely paraphrases the content of the motion. In view of its findings, the court concluded: There has been no evidence produced that shows any impact upon this community which might prevent the defendant from receiving a fair trial. There were neither affidavits nor testimony from citizens of the county demonstrating any influence or bias caused by these remarks. No poll was produced to prove actual prejudice. See State v. Marshall, 264 N.W.2d 911 (S.D.1978). Community prejudice cannot be considered in abstract terms only, it must be proven to exist. Merely because prejudicial statements are made (the cause) does not show the statements were taken as true or that they caused a problem (the effect).... This court cannot find fault with any of the media coverages. All of it is a good example of proper reporting which preserves the right to report criminal proceedings while not infringing upon the defendant's right to a fair trial. Nor, although not condoned by the court, were the remarks by the Attorney General of such a nature as to preclude this defendant from receiving a fair trial. The defendant has not carried the necessary burden to prove otherwise. Citing State v. Serl, 269 N.W.2d 785 (S.D.1978). We concur in the findings and conclusions of the trial court. The existence of pretrial publicity alone does not warrant the conclusion that the accused was denied a fair trial. State v. Reed, 313 N.W.2d 788, 789 (S.D.1981) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975)). The burden rests with the accused to establish that an impartial trial is not possible in the face of pretrial publicity. State v. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860, 867 (S.D.1979). Furthermore, whether a change of venue will be granted is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and we will not disturb the trial court's decision absent a showing that its discretion has been abused. State v. Reiman, supra . Moreover, the voir dire examination is the better forum for ascertaining the existence of hostility towards the accused. Id. Reutter makes no claim that he was unable to remedy the effects of adverse pretrial publicity through this process. As we stated in Reiman, the test is whether there is, in fact, prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of the county sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension that the accused will not receive a fair and impartial trial in the county. Id. at 867. See State v. Meservey, 53 S.D. 60, 220 N.W. 139 (1928). We hold that the trial court properly refused Reutter's motion to dismiss and his request for change of venue.