Opinion ID: 1824793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to sustain defendant's motion for a change of venue?

Text: It is fundamental and essential to our form of government that all persons charged with a crime have the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. White v. State, 495 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Miss. 1986). When it is alleged that an impartial jury can not be obtained without a change of venue, the decision to deny such a motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Harris v. State, 537 So.2d 1325, 1328 (Miss. 1989). Where this discretion has not been abused the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed. Shook v. State, 552 So.2d 841, 849 (Miss. 1989). The presumption that an impartial jury can not be obtained may at times be irrebuttable. Elements which should serve to indicate an irrebuttable presumption are: (1) Capital cases based on considerations of a heightened standard of review; (2) Crowds threatening violence toward the accused; (3) An inordinate amount of media coverage, particularly in cases of (a) serious crimes against influential families; (b) serious crimes against public officials; (c) serial crimes; (d) crimes committed by a black defendant upon a white victim; (e) where there is an inexperienced trial counsel. White, 495 So.2d at 1349. Did Porter raise a presumption that an impartial jury could not be obtained? This presumption arises upon proper application for a change of venue. White, 495 So.2d at 1348. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-35 (1972), proper application requires a written motion supported by affidavits of two (2) or more witnesses showing that the defendant cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the particular county because of prejudgment of the case or grudge or ill will to the defendant in the public mind. See Lutes v. State, 517 So.2d 541, 545 (Miss. 1987). Porter's motion for change of venue was made orally during voir dire proceedings and was not supported by affidavits as required by statute. Even if the requirements of Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-35 (1972) are merely mechanical, as Porter argues, it benefits her not at all. Each of the twenty-one (21) venire members who had heard of the case and were upset, shocked, or bothered by what they heard also stated under oath that they would base their verdict solely on evidence presented at trial and either that media reports had not caused them to prejudge the guilt or innocence of Porter or that they presumed Porter innocent. The record does not reveal prejudgment of the case or ill will toward the defendant in the public mind. Based on the questions and responses during voir dire, it appears that an impartial jury was actually impaneled. Although all venire members who had heard of the case prior to voir dire stated they had not prejudged the case and would render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial and the instructions of law given by the trial judge, only five (5) of this group were actually impaneled on a twelve person jury. Viewing the verdict rendered in light of the evidence presented, it does not seem that the State needed the benefit of a prejudiced jury for Porter's conviction. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a reasonable jury that would not convict on the evidence presented. The same result would have been reached with or without the publicity of which Porter complains. There is no merit to this assignment of error.