Opinion ID: 2603715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Bierman's Motion for Change of Venue

Text: Bierman filed a motion for change of venue in April 1989. Owens also had filed a similar motion. The motions were heard together. Owens introduced two affidavits and numerous newspaper articles. Bierman introduced 63 newspaper articles. Her counsel read from a letter to the editor published in a local newspaper, the Kansas City Kansan. The letter concluded, I hope the woman [Bierman] pays for her heinous crime. The motions were denied. The district court relied upon State v. Salem, 230 Kan. 341, 343-44, 634 P.2d 1109 (1981). The district court found Bierman and Owens had not presented sufficient evidence to meet the Salem standards. The district court observed: If, during the jury selection of the case at bar, it becomes evident that it will be inordinately difficult or practically impossible to select an impartial jury, then the issue of venue should be reconsidered. Bierman advances the conclusory argument that the trial court committed reversible error in denying her motion for change of venue. She repeats the argument made to the trial court  the extensive media coverage prevented Bierman from receiving a fair trial. The State contends Bierman failed to show sufficient prejudice and failed to raise the issue at the time of jury selection. The State's contention has merit. K.S.A. 22-2616(1) states: In any prosecution, the court upon motion of the defendant shall order that the case be transferred as to him to another county or district if the court is satisfied that there exists in the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county. In State v. Sanders, 223 Kan. 273, 280, 574 P.2d 559 (1977), we listed the rules regarding change of venue: (1) the burden to establish prejudice is on defendant, (2) not only prejudice must be shown but the prejudice must be such as to make it reasonably certain the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, (3) speculation as to possible prejudice is not sufficient, (4) the State is not required to produce evidence to refute affidavits obtained by defendant, (5) the granting of a change of venue lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and (6) the trial court's ruling thereon will not be disturbed absent a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant. In State v. Myrick & Nelms, 228 Kan. 406, 417, 616 P.2d 1066 (1980), we again reviewed the question of the existence of prejudice against a defendant sufficient to justify a change of venue. Specific facts and circumstances must be established to indicate it will be practically impossible to obtain an impartial jury to try the case. Such a showing may not be based on speculation. Extensive media coverage alone does not establish prejudice per se. State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 635, 740 P.2d 559 (1987). In the case at bar, 150 jurors were called for selection to the jury and were sworn for the voir dire examination. The trial court excused eight persons for various reasons not related to impartiality. At one point, the district attorney asked if anyone had not been exposed to the case. Only three of the remaining jurors had not. The jurors were asked if they could forget about any preconceived notions and decide the case on the evidence. After extensive examination, the district attorney passed the jury panel for cause. Owens conducted an extensive voir dire examination. He also mentioned the publicity and asked if the jury could be impartial. Jurors Whytus and Chow admitted that they had already formed an opinion. They were challenged by Owens. The trial court excused them. Owens challenged a third juror who said she could not be fair and impartial. The trial judge excused the juror. Owens passed the jury panel for cause. During her voir dire examination, Bierman challenged two jurors for cause because they could not look at gruesome pictures. The trial judge excused the jurors. Bierman challenged another juror who was acquainted with the victim; he was excused. Bierman then passed the jury panel for cause. The voir dire examination lasted one and one half days. Only five jurors were challenged for cause. The trial judge excused all five. Bierman did not renew her motion for change of venue. There appears to have been no difficulty selecting an impartial jury. See State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. at 636, 740 P.2d 559. Bierman has failed in her burden to (1) establish prejudice and (2) prove that there existed such prejudice that she reasonably could not have received a fair trial.