Opinion ID: 1589326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: St. Charles Venire

Text: Mr. Baumruk alleges that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to import a jury from outside St. Charles County to hear his case because the citizens of St. Charles County were exposed to extensive media coverage of the charged crime. He asserts that St. Charles and St. Louis counties constitute one community and, as such, because this Court found a jury from St. Louis County to be unfair, a jury from St. Charles County does not comply with this Court's mandate. When evaluating whether to grant or deny a change in venire, the same standards apply as when evaluating whether to grant or deny a change in venue. See State v. Norman, 243 S.W.3d 466, 473 (Mo.App.2007). As such, whether to grant or deny a change of venue or venire is within the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's ruling will be disturbed only in the presence of a clear abuse of discretion. See Baumruk II, 85 S.W.3d at 648. When the record shows that the inhabitants of the county are so prejudiced against the defendant that a fair trial cannot occur in that county, the failure to grant a change of venue or venire constitutes an abuse of discretion. See id. See also Norman, 243 S.W.3d at 473. No requirement exists that jurors be ignorant of the facts and issues reported by the media. State v. Johns, 34 S.W.3d 93, 107 (Mo. banc 2000). In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). Therefore, the question is not whether the community remembers the case but whether the actual jurors of the case have fixed opinions such that they could not judge impartially whether the defendant was guilty. Baumruk II, 85 S.W.3d at 648-49. There must be a pattern of deep and bitter prejudice or a wave of public passion such that the seating of an impartial jury is impossible. Id. at 649 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A change of venue [or venire] is required when it is necessary to assure the defendant a fair and impartial trial. Id. Here, the trial court summoned a venire panel of 283 individuals. Any venire member who indicated he was aware of the case from outside sources received individual questioning. In addition, the court automatically excused anyone who was aware that Mr. Baumruk had received the death sentence in his prior trial, regardless of whether they indicated they could set aside that information and judge the case solely on the evidence presented at the new trial. Five of the jurors who eventually sat on the jury received individual questioning due to their responses during initial questioning. Of those five, Mr. Baumruk did not seek to strike any for cause. The trial court took steps to secure a fair jury, including summoning a large venire panel and enabling the parties to conduct extensive individual questioning. Unlike Mr. Baumruk's previous trial, which took place in the same courthouse and in a similar courtroom as the crime itself, [7] the trial here occurred in a different courthouse and different county. Significant media coverage of Mr. Baumruk's case occurred, but none of the jurors who served during his trial had fixed opinions preventing them from judging impartially whether Mr. Baumruk was guilty and, if so, what sentence to recommend. There is no indication in the record that Mr. Baumruk did not receive a fair trial. Whether a different venire might have been preferable is not before this Court, and the use of a venire panel from St. Charles County falls within the discretion of the trial judge.