Opinion ID: 2605130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The nature and extent of the publicity.

Text: If the court finds from the motion, the materials and exhibits filed with it, and any testimony received before commencement of the trial, that the degree of prejudice necessary exists, then venue should be changed at that stage in the proceedings in accordance with the further provisions in Rule 23(b) and (c), W.R.Cr.P. [4] If not satisfied that there was a showing of prejudice so great as to preclude a fair trial, the court may deny the motion or take it under advisement (as was done in this case) and then, in addition, also consider, b. The difficulty or ease in selecting a jury, and whether the prejudice claimed actually appears during jury selection. State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 388, 626 P.2d 118 (1981). We consider first the nature and extent of publicity. In this case, there were several news articles that appeared in newspapers circulated in the Kemmerer area. The first mostly recited the charge contained in the indictment. Neither the prosecuting attorney nor law enforcement officials commented upon or discussed details of the indictment. The next article contained quotes from the affidavit of a deputy sheriff filed in support of the complaint and warrant issued out of justice court. The article was mostly factual, recited that appellant had lived two blocks from the Fuller house, and that he could not remember some of the details of that night. The third article was similar to prior articles in that it contained quotes from the affidavit filed in the court file and some comments from law enforcement personnel concerning their surprise at the indictment because appellant had performed well as an officer at Cokeville and had done a bang-up job. There was a letter to the editor in one newspaper that was highly critical of the sheriff in the manner in which the investigation had been handled. The sheriff responded to that letter by simply stating he could not comment on the case while it was pending. The balance of releases concerned settings for trial or vacating and resetting the trial. The last news article was on September 23, 1982, and it simply recited the date set for trial. The trial was held approximately four months after the last news article. In all, there were seven news articles. Three recited some factual information concerning the incident which appeared to have been taken from documents filed in the court file, a public record. The other four articles were very brief and concerned mostly trial settings, continuances and resetting the case for trial. There was no editorial comment nor opinions concerning the guilt or innocence of appellant. Collins v. State, supra, is factually similar to the instant case. The incident resulting in criminal charges occurred at the Long Branch Bar at Reno Junction. Reno Junction is a small community south of Gillette, Wyoming. Gillette is the county seat and the place where the trial was held. A motion for change of venue was presented to the court and supported by a compilation of numerous news articles, and the testimony of a bank teller and the news director of the local radio station concerning widespread publicity. Their opinion was that appellant, in that case, could not obtain a fair and impartial trial. The news coverage and publicity in the Collins case was considerably greater, more extensive, and occurred over a longer period of time than in the instant case. In Collins, after stating that the news articles were numerous and accumulated between the time of the crime and the motion for change of venue, we said    An examination indicates that they are objective, give a report of what occurred, narrate the progress of the proceedings from time to time, and are of a generally informative nature. There is no editorial reporting nor any editorials containing any sort of a conclusion that the defendant was guilty.    589 P.2d at 1287. The initial motion for change of venue in that case was denied. In this case, the motion for change of venue was supported by just seven news articles released over a period of approximately two months from the occurrence of this incident in July until September 23, 1982. There was not extensive publicity. The news articles contained materials almost entirely found in the court file of this case and the public records. The reports were factual. There were no editorials nor opinions in the articles concerning the guilt or innocence of appellant. There was no carnival-like atmosphere surrounding the proceedings as would deny appellant a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as in Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, reh. denied 382 U.S. 875, 86 S.Ct. 18, 15 L.Ed.2d 118 (1965). Appellant had the burden of showing prejudice so great or general as to preclude his receiving a fair and impartial trial; and the determination as to whether such prejudice exists is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Chavez v. State, Wyo., 604 P.2d 1341 (1979). The mere fact that potential jurors may have heard of the incident or read about it in news articles is not determinative of the issue. That is to be expected with a free press; and where the news articles are largely factual and not inflamatory (as in this case), they cannot be considered prejudicial. Shaffer v. State, Wyo., 640 P.2d 88 (1982). Thus, at this stage of the proceeding, there was no abuse of discretion in finding that the degree of prejudice necessary had not been demonstrated. The court, therefore, properly deferred its ruling upon the motion for change of venue so that it could consider the second factor bearing upon the question of prejudice, b. The difficulty or ease in selecting a jury, and whether the prejudice claimed actually appears during jury selection. State v. Greenawalt, supra. A panel of eighty-six jurors was called from which the jury in this case was selected. The trial court allowed the attorneys considerable latitude in conducting voir dire. They explored thoroughly jurors' exposure to publicity; any prior knowledge they might have concerning the death of Cleo Fuller, the crime charged and any opinions that they might have formed; their knowledge of the parties or the case and whether they believed the defendant guilty as he sat in the courtroom, or whether they would require him to put in any evidence in his defense. Fifteen jurors were excused for cause. Six of those excused had formed an opinion, prejudged the case, and could not be fair and impartial if selected as jurors. One juror, recognizing she must be impartial, was unsure and the court excused her. She was from Cokeville. The other eight jurors were excused for cause for reasons unconnected with bias or prejudice toward the defendant. The reasons included a sick child, hardship in an occupation or business, prejudice against the use of intoxicating liquor, strong feelings against the police department for the handling of the case  reasons common in all jury trials. Four jurors were excused peremptorily by appellant. Jury selection was completed in a little more than a day (voir dire concluded at 10:15 a.m. the second day of the trial) without difficulty. Most of the jurors had heard of the case. That is to be expected in a sparsely populated rural community. That they had heard of the case does not in itself establish that they are so knowledgeable or hold such strong opinions that they cannot be fair and impartial if selected as jurors. At the conclusion of jury selection, appellant renewed his motion for a change of venue. A change of venue may be granted  if the court is satisfied there exists    so great a prejudice that defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial. Rule 23(a), W.R.Cr.P., supra. The determination of prejudice to the satisfaction of the court is primarily factual and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Chavez v. State, supra. Considering both the nature of the pretrial publicity and the ease of jury selection in this case, the court properly denied the motion for change of venue.