Opinion ID: 1133490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: probability of fair trial in taos county

Text: {45} House argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not have sufficient evidence to support its decision to move the trial from Taos County. The applicable statute, Section 38-3-6, states that [a] second change of venue shall not be allowed in any civil or criminal case, as a matter of right, but shall be within the discretion of the court. This statute controls our evaluation of the move to Doņa Ana County. However, the exact nature of the trial court's discretion has not, with the exception of the Court of Appeals majority opinion below, been construed by our appellate courts. The majority below, in discussing this statute, noted that the court's discretion should be guided by its obligation to ensure that the parties receive a fair trial from an unbiased, impartial jury and, more dubiously, posited that the fact that venue has already been changed once can weigh against a second change of venue. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 7, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. It is true that in State v. Alaniz , we stated that the trial court need only determine whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the party seeking a new venue will not secure a fair and impartial trial. Alaniz, 55 N.M. at 318-19, 232 P.2d at 986. However, these words were not directed at the statute at issue in this case. They refer to Section 38-3-3, which deals only with a first-and not a second-change of venue. As the assessment of Section 38-3-6 in the majority opinion below indicates, there is some dispute as to whether the standards that apply to a first change of venue should also apply to a second. {46} House seizes upon this ambiguity by raising the distinction between actual prejudice and presumed prejudice. These are concepts applied by federal courts. Actual prejudice requires a direct investigation into the attitudes of potential jurors. Under this inquiry, the court will conduct a voir dire of prospective jurors to establish whether there is such widespread and fixed prejudice within the jury pool that a fair trial in that venue would be impossible. United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 732 (4th Cir.1991). Presumed prejudice, on the other hand, addresses the effect of publicity about a crime upon the entire community where the trial takes place. Under this inquiry, a change of venue should be granted if evidence shows that the community is so saturated with inflammatory publicity about the crime that it must be presumed that the trial proceedings are tainted. United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1523 (9th Cir.1992), overruled implicitly on other grounds by United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.1997). However, the same standard of review applies to the trial court's decision-a determination based upon substantial evidence in the record-whether a venue change is based upon presumed or actual prejudice. But see Snell v. Lockhart, 14 F.3d 1289, 1294 (8th Cir.1994) (A higher standard must be met when a petitioner seeks habeas relief on the basis of presumed prejudice.). Thus, actual prejudice is based upon direct evidence of bias in the minds of individual prospective jurors, while presumed prejudice makes inferences about the effect of publicity on the community as a whole. {47} There was some skepticism in the Court of Appeals opinion below as to the applicability of the distinction between actual and presumed prejudice. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 17, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737; House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 78-80, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. Nevertheless, though it depreciated this distinction, the majority below implicitly invoked an actual-prejudice standard by stating that there should have been an attempt to seat a jury in Taos before granting a venue change. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 42, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 (stating we believe it is vitally important that the district court make an attempt to select a new jury from Taos County before ordering a change of venue). But see id. ķ 118 (stating this Court must determine whether the pretrial publicity in this case raised a presumption of prejudice  (emphasis added)). Conversely, the trial court concluded that the likelihood of prejudice in Taos County was so overwhelming that the probability of unfairness could be established without voir dire. As Judge Blackmer stated, the findings showed  a strong probability that if a THIRD trial of this case were to be held in Taos County, a fair trial (and a fair and impartial jury) cannot be obtained. Venue Order, slip op. at 6-7 (Finding of Fact 11) (emphasis added). House claims that the trial court abused its discretion by applying a presumed-prejudice standard when it should have, as indicated by the majority below, applied an actual-prejudice standard and held voir dire in Taos. {48} Regarding the nature of the trial court's discretion under Section 38-3-6, we conclude that the parameters that apply to a first change of venue should also apply to a second. Thus the trial court, in following Section 38-3-6, should rely upon the indicia found in Section 38-3-3(A)(2): undue influence by the adverse party over the minds of the inhabitants of the county, public excitement, local prejudice, and any other cause showing that a fair trial cannot be obtained in the county in which the case is pending. As indicated above, the trial court should apply a reasonable-probability standard of proof when balancing conflicting claims regarding the likelihood of a fair trial in a particular venue. {49} We emphasize that our holding in this case is founded on the requirement set forth in Section 38-3-6. In other words, the venue issue before us turns on whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a second venue change to Doņa Ana County. However, we do not believe that, by itself, a finding of a reasonable probability of unfairness in Taos brings us any closer to a resolution of the claims of the parties, the rationale of the trial court's Order Changing Venue For Trial, and the conflicting arguments of the majority and dissent in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. House's arguments cannot be so summarily dismissed. Because of the highly contentious evidence in the record, as well as the disparity of opinion among, not only the parties, but members of the judiciary, we must comprehensively analyze whether voir dire was essential to determining the reasonable probability of a fair trial in Taos. We conclude that differentiating actual and presumptive prejudice is useful in evaluating the parameters of Section 38-3-6. As discussed below, New Mexico's venue statutes require a different standard of proof than would be required in federal courts under the presumptive prejudice standard. Based upon New Mexico venue laws, we conclude, contrary to the arguments of House and the majority of the Court of Appeals, that the trial court's implicit finding of presumed prejudice in Taos County is supported by substantial evidence. See House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 26, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737.
{50} House contends that the trial court should have permitted a venue change from Taos County only if actual prejudice had been established. He urges that, in this particular case, the only way the trial court could have established that the venue was hopelessly prejudiced was to attempt to seat a jury by conducting voir dire. Only if interviews with actual potential jurors revealed an extreme level of prejudice would a change of venue be justified. {51} When courts address actual prejudice, the often quoted inquiry, from Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1035, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984), is whether the jurors had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant. See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 115 N.M. 6, 21, 846 P.2d 312, 327 (1993). Given the state of modern communications, it is not only unnecessary, but realistically impossible to expect jurors to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues of a case. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966) (discussing the pervasiveness of modern communications). Thus, we make a distinction between mere familiarity with petitioner or his past and an actual predisposition against him. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800 n. 4, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). {52} Voir dire is one way of establishing the existence of fixed opinions in the minds of potential jurors. See State v. Chamberlain, 112 N.M. 723, 726, 819 P.2d 673, 676 (1991) (The court determined through voir dire that the jurors, although they may have heard of the case, were not incapable of impartiality. More is not required.). In voir dire the court will determine whether prospective jurors will be able to reach a verdict based solely on evidence received in open court, not from outside sources. Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 351, 86 S.Ct. 1507. Voir dire establishes actual prejudice by exposing the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 157, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878). {53} In Twohig we noted that in his first two trials the court, attorneys for the State, and attorneys for House had used another tool to combat potential prejudice caused by pretrial publicity-extensive voir dire-which also was available for use in the third trial. Twohig, 1996-NMSC-023, ķ 27, 121 N.M. 746, 918 P.2d 332. House interprets this dictum as a mandate that voir dire be conducted before a change of venue. However, this comment merely suggests that voir dire is one way of measuring prejudice caused by pretrial publicity in the jury selection process-especially with regard to statements by attorneys to the public media. {54} While voir dire is essential in establishing actual prejudice, it is but one method by which the trial court may determine that, because of pretrial publicity, a fair trial is improbable in a particular venue. Cf. State v. Montano, 93 N.M. 436, 437, 601 P.2d 69, 70 (Ct.App.1979) (The answers of prospective jurors to questions on voir dire was evidence to be considered in deciding the venue motions.). We therefore disagree with the majority below that the record does not support the district court's decision to take the drastic step of changing venue without first attempting to select a new jury from Taos County. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 25, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. We agree with the dissent's conclusion that the presence or absence of voir dire of a third venire [is not] the only determinative factor in deciding whether there were adequate grounds for a venue change, especially where the trial court had the benefit of a record replete with expert analysis of public opinion surveys, published statements of community sentiment, and voir dire conducted in prior mistrials. House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 87, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. When other types of evidence, like those discussed below, support a presumption that pretrial publicity has rendered a fair trial improbable, then the court, in its discretion, can change venue without conducting voir dire. Cf. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 727, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (concluding on appeal without pausing to examine a particularized transcript of the voir dire examination of the members of the jury due process required a trial before a jury drawn from an unbiased community). {55} In New Mexico there is no requirement in our constitution, statutes, or case law that a venue change should be supported by proof of actual prejudice through voir dire, even when the change is opposed by the defendant. As with all aspects of a venue change, the choice of waiting until after voir dire before granting a motion to change venue rests with the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. See State v. Robinson, 94 N.M. 693, 696, 616 P.2d 406, 409 (1980) (finding no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to wait until after voir dire before determining if impartial jury could be selected but in no way intimating that such a process would be required). {56} To summarize, courts will change a venue based upon actual prejudice if they find that the opinions of the community, as reflected by the opinions of prospective jurors in voir dire, are so fixed that, were the trial to be held in that community, the jurors would be unlikely to lay aside their preconceived notions and base their judgment exclusively on the evidence presented at trial. See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722-23, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961).
{57} The concept that a venue may be changed because of presumed prejudice is based upon the strong due-process principle that our system of law must endeavor to prevent even the probability of unfairness. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). As the United States Supreme Court has noted, justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954). Federal courts have reserved presumed prejudice only for the most extreme situations in which a change of venue is required in order to protect a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. See, e.g., Snell, 14 F.3d at 1293. In extreme cases, media coverage can so sensationalize a crime that legal proceedings will be transformed and the objective of a fair trial will be compromised. Cf. Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 356-57, 86 S.Ct. 1507. Our own venue statutes do not require so high a standard. As set forth above, under Section 38-3-6, the movant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that a fair trial cannot be obtained in a particular venue. In New Mexico, when we analyze the presumption that a particular venue was tainted by prejudicial publicity, we will rest our conclusions on the reasonable probability standard of proof, rather than limiting the presumption, as do federal courts in the constitutional arena, only to the most extreme situations. Nevertheless, the publicity must be demonstrably prejudicial in order to support a trial court's determination that an unfair trial is reasonably probable. That standard has been emphatically established in this case. The publicity in this case was, in fact, extreme, if not outrageous. As Judge Blackmer stated in his Order, [B]ut for this heavy television coverage of the 12/24/92 tragedy and its aftermath and the comments of public officials about this case, there is a good likelihood that change of venue from Bernalillo County in March 1994 and thereafter would not have been necessary. Venue Order, slip op. at 10 (Finding of Fact 17). {58} Prejudice may be established if a community is so saturated by a barrage of inflammatory and biased publicity, close to the beginning of legal proceedings, that the trial inevitably takes place in an atmosphere of intense public passion. See Irvin, 366 U.S. at 727-28, 81 S.Ct. 1639 (discussing publicity causing opinion of guilt to permeate minds of jurors); Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487, 1539-43 (11th Cir.1985) (concluding trial court's denial of motion to change venue was clearly erroneous given pervasive prejudicial pretrial publicity). Under such circumstances there is a reasonable probability that prospective jurors were exposed to the sensational publicity, as well as the emotional atmosphere in the community, and that many of them are strongly predisposed for or against one of the parties in the case. See Dischner, 974 F.2d at 1524 (discussing publicity that proclaimed the defendants' guilt in advance of the trial and precluded the jurors from independently evaluating the evidence). {59} Courts that have investigated the presence of presumed prejudice in a particular venue have discussed several factors that indicate prejudice from pretrial publicity has evolved to such a degree that a fair trial is improbable. These factors establish the reasonable probability, under Section 38-3-6, that a fair trial could not be obtained in Taos.
{60} As both sides in the opinion below noted, the mere fact that publicity is widespread and that many people are familiar with a case does not automatically lead to the presumption that a venue has been impermissibly tainted. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 13, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737; House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 80;, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 see also Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 726, 819 P.2d at 676. Much depends on the nature of the publicity. News articles and broadcasts, even if pervasive and frequent, will not be found prejudicial if they are fair, neutral, unemotional, and generally limited to a recitation of established facts. Snell, 14 F.3d at 1294. Also relevant is whether the publicity, even if it was emotional and opinionated, occurred close to the time of the trial. If detrimental articles and broadcasts appeared months or years before the beginning of a trial, the probability of prejudice is significantly reduced. See Patton, 467 U.S. at 1034, 104 S.Ct. 2885 (That time soothes and erases is a perfectly natural phenomenon, familiar to all.); Murphy, 421 U .S. at 802, 95 S.Ct. 2031 (last significant publicity was seven months before jury selection). {61} As the news items cited in the fact section of this opinion demonstrate, the pretrial, during-trial, and post-trial publicity in this case could not be characterized as largely fair, neutral, unemotional, or objective. Publicity about the case appeared frequently throughout the geographical region that included Taos County. Moreover, as noted by Judge Armijo in her dissent, news items were published concurrent with every legal maneuver and proceeding in the case: [T]his is not a case where publicity was minimal or had diminished over time. The trial court's review of the content of the newspaper articles and television broadcasts presented in the record revealed that the nature of the publicity was, in some instances, emotional, sensational, inflammatory, intrusive, and potentially misleading. House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 100-01, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. There is abundant evidence in the record to suggest that the publicity in this case was prejudicial. See Irvin, 366 U.S. at 725-26, 81 S.Ct. 1639 (discussing highlights of numerous news items and their permeation of the community and concluding prejudice was clear and convincing).
{62} The form in which the publicity is disseminated can also be a factor in determining whether prejudice can be presumed to have overrun a community. It is often asserted that television is the most potentially prejudicial means of publicizing information. The United States Supreme Court has stated, The television camera is a powerful weapon. Intentionally or inadvertently it can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 549, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965). For this reason, Judge Blackmer in his Order properly stated that the images of the devastated vehicles at the crash site (which, as indicated by the endnotes to the facts above, appeared incessantly throughout the television coverage about the House case), the emotional interviews with the families of the victims and with House and his family, the public sniping by the attorneys, and the intense coverage of the two trials in Taos, would be much more memorable and make more of an impression upon viewers than would the same comments through radio and newspapers. Venue Order, slip op. at 10-11 (Finding of Fact 17(A)). Judge Blackmer concluded that for the residents of Taos County, these television images and sounds were the most potential and likely source of prejudice to potential jurors. Id. at 11-12 (Finding of Fact 17(A)); see also House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 99-101, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 (discussing effect of television). {63} House and the majority in the opinion below argue that such a conclusion is not supported by evidence in the record. However, the influence of television can be so potent that the United States Supreme Court has intimated that it is reasonable to presume that inflammatory information broadcast by television has introduced bias into a venue, even if it is not possible to link a particular trend in public opinion to specific televised news items. See Estes, 381 U.S. at 544, 85 S.Ct. 1628 (Still one cannot put his finger on [television's] specific mischief and prove with particularity wherein [the accused] was prejudiced.). The unrelenting televised publicity contributed to tainting the impartiality of Taos as a venue for this case. {64} Though the effect of television news coverage was arguably the most prejudicial, the trial court also correctly acknowledged the detrimental impact of newspaper coverage, which was frequently highly emotional. See Venue Order, slip op. at 13-14 (Finding of Fact 17(C)) (discussing numerous lengthy newspaper articles); House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 99-101, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 (discussing prejudicial effect of newspaper coverage). The court also acknowledged the influence of opinionated radio broadcasts. See Venue Order, slip op. at 13 (Finding of Fact 17(B)); House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 99-100, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 (discussing prejudicial effect of radio coverage).
{65} The size and nature of a community are factors that can promote or dissipate the probability of prejudice resulting from pretrial publicity. See Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 429, 111 S.Ct. 1899 (suggesting that a much publicized murder trial would not stand out in the metropolitan Washington statistical area, which has a population of over 3 million, and in which, unfortunately, hundreds of murders are committed each year). Taos County, according to the 1990 census, had little more than 23,000 residents. Judge Blackmer stated that the residents of this small community were very aware of the two trials in this case: [The first] trial and the presence of television cameras inside and outside the courtroom, and the presence of news persons from radio and television and print media were widely known in this small town and in this small-population county. . . . Venue Order, slip op. at 2 (Finding of Fact 3). Implicit is the court's reasonable assumption that a large community would be less likely to be corrupted by sensational publicity about a trial. {66} The trial court observed that after the first trial, comments by the attorneys, parties, and family members appeared in the news adding to the public excitement and opinions and knowledge and information about this case in that small-population city and County. Id. at 3 (Finding of Fact 5). This potential for bias could only have been exacerbated by the public controversy after the second hung jury. Judge Armijo, in her dissent in the Court of Appeals opinion below, outlined the evidence mentioned by the trial court relating to the impact of the trial on the small population of Taos. House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 104-07, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. We will not reiterate the evidence she has summarized, but we agree with her conclusion that [t]here was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings regarding the nature and size of the Taos community. Id. ķ 107. {67} House claims that the State, with its prejudicial statements to the press, deliberately attempted to spoil the forum. He argues that because the State brought about the conditions which made necessary the change of venue, its motion for a venue change should have been denied. See Martin v. Beto, 397 F.2d 741, 747-48 (5th Cir. 1968) (evaluating whether state action spoiled venue and denied defendant a fair trial). However, as the publicity cited in the facts of this case demonstrates, the State was no more skillful than the defense in airing its opinions in the media, and if prejudice resulted from such publicity, no evidence exists that one party was more culpable than the other.49 {68} We are concerned that, in discussing this issue, the trial judge inserted his own impressions of the citizens of Taos: This Judge has presided over trials and hearing in Taos County and selected Juries there. . . . From this Judge's FINE experiences with Taos county jury selections and juries, the Court notes that Taos area citizens/jurors are close-knit, know and socialize with each other well, exchange news and information and points of view openly and freely, and have a great deal of personal respect and consideration for each other and their opinions and of view. Thus, they are more likely to share and learn of and know about this case and its facts, and the opinions and points of views [sic] of those who served in the two juries in this case. Venue Order, slip op. at 5 (Finding of Fact 9). In the past, we have expressed disapproval of trial judges who base a venue decision on their own opinions and impressions. In Alaniz we reversed a conviction in part because the trial judge based his denial of a venue change upon personal impressions similar to those expressed by the judge in this case: (The court doesn't feel that these men cannot get a fair trial in Lincoln County. On the other hand, he thinks they can get a fair trial as they can get in any county. The Court is somewhat familiar with the people in Lincoln County, having dealt with them six or seven years, and as far as the influence of the Nalda family, they have quite a bit of influence in one portion of the county, around Corona, but Capitan, Picacho, San Patricio, Green Tree, Ruidoso, there I would say that half of the people never heard of the Nalda family. I am going to overrule the motion.) Alaniz, 55 N.M. at 319, 232 P.2d at 986 (quoting trial record). We held that the trial judge's opinion in Alaniz did not constitute evidence contradicting the material statements of fact in the defendant's motion for a change of venue and, absent evidence to the contrary, the venue change was mandatory. Id. {69} In the case at hand, the judge's observations do not substantively distinguish Taos County from any other community in New Mexico and do not constitute substantive reasons for a venue change. See Deats, 80 N.M. at 79, 451 P.2d at 983 (noting that our venue statutes function to prevent the trial court from overruling a venue motion on the basis of its own knowledge of local conditions). We agree with the suggestion of the majority below regarding this matter, and disagree with the dissent's contrary conclusion. We believe that the judge's personal experiences in Taos were not appropriate evidence upon which to base a venue change. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 39-40, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. But see Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 427, 111 S.Ct. 1899 (indicating that a local judge is in a better position than an appellate court to evaluate the effect of publicity because [t]he judge of that court sits in the locale where the publicity is said to have had its effect and brings to his evaluation of any such claim his own perception of the depth and extent of news stories that might influence a juror); House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 96, 106, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 (approving judge's reliance on his personal impressions). However, in the context of the other overwhelming evidence in favor of a venue change, this indiscretion is inconsequential.
{70} Though we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a presumption of prejudice that would preclude a fair trial in Taos County, it is notable that the trial court indicated that its decision was in part supported by what may arguably be described as actual prejudice. Judge Blackmer intimated that, after the second trial, it became apparent that some jurors had entered the proceeding with fixed opinions that prevented them from making a judgment exclusively on the evidence presented at trial. [A]t the Jury's request at the end of the second trial in November 1994, Judge Blackhurst spoke privately with the Jury; he then returned to the Courtroom and advised all Counsel that some of the jurors apparently did not disclose their biases during jury selection. . . . As additional examples and considerations before this Court, post-trial interviews with jurors by the news media indicated hard feelings among the jurors (especially in the second trial), and apparent sympathy of some jurors that may have affected their deliberations and ensuing hung jury-and may have violated the Court's instruction that Neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence your verdict. Venue Order, slip op. at 6 (Finding of Fact 10). As noted above, the trial court must prevent even the probability of unfairness. Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136, 75 S.Ct. 623. The very possibility of undisclosed actual juror prejudice during the second trial is one of the strongest arguments supporting a change of venue away from Taos County for the third trial. Cf. State v. Shawan, 77 N.M. 354, 358, 423 P.2d 39, 43 (1967) (To expect a juror to confess prejudice is not always a reliable practice.).
{71} As analyzed by the Court of Appeals opinion below, the trial court based its determination in part upon the inflammatory comments about the trial made by local Taos politicians. A letter, purportedly by a former State Senator from Taos, was published in the Taos News, about two weeks after the first hung jury, harshly criticizing the prosecution and the media as racist in their treatment of House. Venue Order, slip op. at 3-4 (Finding of Fact 7) (discussing Letter from Francisco El Comanche Gonzales, Racist remarks, in Favor y Contra, Taos News, July 7, 1994, at A4 (Since the Christmas of 1992, the media, [prosecutor] Robert Schwartz and other bigots seem to have enjoyed what I contend to be a field day with the Gordon House DWI case.)). After the second trial, the incumbent State Senator from Taos was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal accusing the prosecutor of seeking to `try the case 10, 15 times until he gets what he wants.' Id. at 4-5 (Finding of Fact 8) (quoting Colleen Heild, Senators Grill DA on Gordon House Case, Albuquerque J., Feb. 25, 1995, at A10.). Judge Blackmer concluded that [s]uch public comments by well-known Taos area citizens ([who were] presumptively aware of-or speaking on behalf of-the Taos county constituency and their attitudes and feelings) are further circumstantial indication that at least one party probably would not receive a fair trial if a third trial were to occur in Taos County. Id. at 4-5 (Finding of Fact 8). {72} The first of these newspaper articles was published approximately seven months prior to the second trial and likely was not widely remembered in Taos by the time of the third trial. See Murphy, 421 U.S. at 802, 95 S.Ct. 2031 (last significant publicity was seven months before jury selection). Moreover, it is impossible that the second of these newspaper articles affected Taos residents on February 7, 1995, when Judge Blackmer granted the motion to change venue, because the article was published eighteen days later on February 25. We agree with the majority below that any prejudicial effect from these articles was negligible. See House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 38, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. (To the extent that both local leaders were critical of the prosecution, there was no showing in the record that their beliefs were widespread within the Taos community.).
{73} In addressing the prejudicial effect of pretrial publicity, this Court, in the past, has adopted the pronouncement in Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. at 1035, 104 S.Ct. 2885, that [t]he relevant question is not whether the community remembered the case, but whether the jurors . . . had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant. See, e.g., Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 726, 819 P.2d at 676; State v. McGuire, 110 N.M. 304, 311, 795 P.2d 996, 1003 (1990). House insists that it is impossible for a court, without questioning prospective jurors in voir dire, to obtain direct evidence that any members of a community have formed inflexible opinions about a particular case. He argues that the question of fixed opinions has been limited exclusively to determinations of actual prejudice. See, e.g., Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 726, 819 P.2d at 676 (concluding that no more than voir dire was required to determine whether jurors had fixed opinions); McGuire, 110 N.M. at 311, 795 P.2d at 1003 (relying upon voir dire in concluding that jurors did not have fixed opinions); Patton, 467 U.S. at 1034-35, 104 S.Ct. 2885 (determining whether voir dire revealed fixed opinions); Harris v. Pulley, 885 F.2d 1354, 1363-64 (9th Cir.1988) (indicating that actual prejudice is established by the presence of fixed opinions). We do not believe the inquiry into fixed opinions is necessarily so limited. {74} In this case, the trial court in its Order did not expressly conclude that fixed opinions predominate in Taos County. It did, however, discuss a number of events and factors that tended to reinforce and solidify the sentiments of the local populace. See Venue Order, slip op. at 4 (Finding of Fact 7). Similarly, the court also surmised that television publicity likely would cause viewers to form opinions and make decisions about the case before trial-and thus more likely to be biased and prejudiced against one Party or the other. Id. at 10-11 (Finding of Fact 17(A)). The dissent below outlines a number of factors, including opinion polls, published statements by members of the community, and evidence from the jury selection during the first two trials, that tend to show a significant number of people in Taos had formed opinions about the case. See House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 112-17, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. But see House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 30-31, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 (disputing value of opinion polls). These types of evidence circumstantially establish the presence of fixed opinions in Taos. {75} A venue change based upon a presumption of prejudice does not require empirical proof of the presence of fixed opinions when, as in this case, there is relentless inflammatory publicity that brings a case to the attention of a substantial percentage of a comparatively small community. If anything, it is unreasonable in this particular case to assume that a great many citizens did not follow the news about the case, discuss it with their neighbors, and form their own opinions. If, as Patton says, the relevant question is whether or not there are fixed opinions, the essential objective of this entire inquiry is to guard against even the probability of an unfair trial. Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136, 75 S.Ct. 623. It is reasonably probable that the frenzied publicity in this case tended to solidify the opinions of so many Taos residents that the fairness of a third trial in that community would be questionable.
{76} As the preceding evidence demonstrates, Judge Blackmer found many indicia of prejudice in Taos County. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a change of venue from Taos County. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the court's conclusions: Widespread inflammatory publicity saturated Taos County close to the time of the trials; the television, newspaper, and radio publicity was highly emotional; the comments by the parties, relatives, and the attorneys in this case further affected public sentiment; the risk of prejudice was increased by the comparatively small population of Taos; jurors in the second trial did not disclose bias during voir dire; and there was a strong likelihood that many potential jurors would enter the third trial with strong predilections toward one party or the other. {77} We emphasize that these factors establish a strong presumption of prejudice and that there is no requirement that the venue change be based upon empirical proof of actual prejudice. Applications for change of venue under our law are predicated on a well-grounded fear that [the defendant] is unlikely to obtain a fair trial and an impartial jury, in the county where the claimed crime occurred. We do not understand the statute to mean that it must be conclusively shown that it is impossible to have a fair trial in the county where the venue is laid, but it is sufficient to show a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will not secure a fair and impartial trial or that the jury are under an influence inimical to the accused. Alaniz, 55 N.M. at 318-19, 232 P.2d at 986 (citation omitted). Moreover, as the trial court was at pains to note, most of these indicia were not, by themselves, sufficient to warrant a presumption of prejudice. See, e.g., Venue Order, slip op. at 3 (Finding of Fact 6) (An admission, by defense counsel, that publicity had permeated Taos is only one minor factor this Court should consider along with all other facts and circumstances on the Motion for Change of Venue.). We need not determine whether any of the individual factors considered by the trial court would justify a change of venue under Section 38-3-6. We conclude that these factors in aggregate constitute substantial evidence to support a reasonable probability that public excitement and local prejudice would prevent a fair and impartial third trial in Taos County.
{78} In addition to disputing the presumption of prejudice in Taos, House intimates that, because the State raised no objection to the move to Taos, that county is the constitutional vicinage in this case. He suggests that he had an actual right to keep the third trial in Taos. In a similar vein-though it mischaracterizes the posture of the move as a mutual stipulation rather than an unopposed motion-the majority below states that, [s]ince both Defendant and the State stipulated to the first change of venue to Taos County, we believe both sides committed themselves to resolving this matter in Taos County unless a fair and impartial jury could not be impaneled from Taos County. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 24, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. Neither of these perspectives comports with our constitution nor statutes. {79} As we noted above, under our constitution, the first choice of venue-the constitutional vicinage-must include an impartial jury that is from the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. N.M. Const. art. II, § 14. In this case the vicinage was Bernalillo County where the accident took place. The defendant has a right to be tried in the vicinage, and convictions can be reversed when defendants have been denied this right. See, e.g., State v. Ramirez, 92 N.M. 206, 209, 585 P.2d 651, 654 (Ct.App.1978) (reversing convictions in which defendant was denied right to be tried in the county where the crime was committed). If an impartial jury cannot be obtained, the venue will be changed as required by Section 38-3-3(A). The new venue cannot be considered the constitutional vicinage, even if it is the first and only place in which the defendant is tried. This is because the new venue lacks one of the essential qualities of the vicinage: it is not the locale in which the crime was allegedly committed. In other words, upon moving for a venue change, a defendant waives his or her constitutional right to be tried in the county in which the crime was committed. See, e.g., Alexander v. Gladden, 205 Or. 375, 288 P.2d 219, 226 (1955). Should a motion for yet another venue change be filed, neither party has a right to remain in the second venue. Under Section 38-3-6, the decision to move to a third venue is exclusively within the discretion of the court. Thus, House had no right to a third trial in Taos.