Opinion ID: 1878960
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether baldwin was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury because venue was changed to a county with a lower percentage of black citizens.

Text: ¶ 15. Baldwin contends that the trial court erred in failing to quash the venire on change of venue since Jackson County, where the jury was chosen, has a lower percentage of black citizens (22.3% potential black jurors) than Lowndes County (36-38% potential black jurors), where the crime occurred. He asserts that, in essence, he was forced to choose between his right to an impartial jury and his right to a jury of his peers. ¶ 16. This issue is controlled by our holding in Simon v. State, 688 So.2d 791 (Miss.1997). There we held that a defendant has no right to a change of venue to a county with a percentage of black citizens similar to that of the county where the offense occurred. Id. at 804. Prior to his first trial, Simon was granted a change of venue from Quitman County (where 53.6% of the registered voters were black) to Jones County (where 21% of the registered voters were black). Id. at 803. Prior to his second trial, Simon moved for a change of venue from Jones County. The motion was granted, and the case was moved to DeSoto County (where blacks comprised 15.2% of the population). As part of his appeal in Simon v. State, 633 So.2d 407 (Miss.1993), vacated on other grounds, Simon v. Mississippi, 513 U.S. 956, 115 S.Ct. 413, 130 L.Ed.2d 329 (1994) (hereinafter referred to as Simon I ), Simon cited as error the trial court's decision to move the case to a county with fewer black citizens than the original forum. ¶ 17. We held: Although the defendant does have a right to be tried by a jury whose members were selected pursuant to a nondiscriminatory criteria, the Batson court noted that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has never been held to require that petit juries actually chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the populations. Simon I, 633 So.2d at 412 (quoting Britt v. State, 520 So.2d 1377, 1379 (Miss.1988)). In Simon II, quoting Chief Justice Hawkins' language from Simon I, we found: Simon cites no cases to support his contention he was entitled to a second change of venue to a county with a population similar to Quitman County. Indeed the United States Supreme Court declined to make such a requirement incumbent on the states in the case of Mallett v. Missouri, 769 S.W.2d 77 (Mo.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1009, 110 S.Ct. 1308, 108 L.Ed.2d 484 (1990). Simon II, 688 So.2d at 803-04. Baldwin likewise fails to cite any case standing for the proposition that he was entitled to a change of venue to a county comprised of a percentage of black citizens similar to that of Lowndes County. ¶ 18. Baldwin has also failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling on this issue. We have repeatedly held that the matter of whether venue should be changed in a criminal proceeding is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id. at 804. Therefore, this issue is without merit.