Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The nature of pretrial publicity and the degree to which it has circulated in the community.

Text: In support of his motion, defendant submitted 14 newspaper articles concerning the crime at the initial hearing on the issue. [5] The articles submitted in support of the motion for a change of venue include seven which ran in THE TIMES, [6] four which appeared in the BOSSIER PRESS-TRIBUNE, two from the BOSSIER BANNER-PROGRESS, and the victim's obituary published in the BOSSIER PARISH POST. These articles reveal this offense was likely the first murder in the small community of Plain Dealing [7] in 16 years and produced considerable fear among its residents. [8] Defendant also notes some of the newspaper articles contained references to his involvement in unrelated other offenses  information that would not be admissible at trial as a result of this Court's rules governing the admission of other crimes evidence. For instance, in an article immediately following the crime, THE TIMES reported defendant had previous brushes with the law and that he was awaiting trial on a simple burglary charge stemming from a September 1999 business break-in in downtown Plain Dealing which led to a fire that destroyed much of the downtown area. Larry Burton, Plain Dealing killing shocks town, THE TIMES, December 20, 2000, at 1A. Other articles focused largely on the victim's character, including a description by her employer's wife in which she was depicted as like a second mother to us. Gregg Trusty, Plain Dealing residents deal with loss of citizen, friend, BOSSIER PRESS-TRIBUNE, December 21, 2000 at 1A. [9] Voir dire examination reveals that of the 92 prospective jurors examined concerning their familiarity with the case, 58 (approximately 63%) responded they had some exposure to it. Notwithstanding, a defendant is not entitled to a jury entirely ignorant of his case and cannot prevail merely by showing a general level of public awareness about the crime. State v. Thompson, 516 So.2d 349, 352 (La.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 180, 102 L.Ed.2d 149 (1988). In fact, this percentage is comparable and in some instances considerably smaller than that found in other cases in which this Court has found no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying a motion for a change of venue based on the number of prospective jurors familiar with the facts of the case. See e.g., State v. Clark, 02-1463 (La.6/27/03), 851 So.2d 1055, 1073 (78 out of 124 (62% of the venire members) responded they had some exposure to the case); State v. Frank, 99-0553 (La.1/17/01), 803 So.2d 1, 16 (110 out of 113 (97% of the venire members) had been exposed to some publicity surrounding the case); [10] Hoffman, 768 So.2d at 555 (72 out of 90 prospective jurors [80%] had awareness of the case before trial); State v. Connolly, 96-2680, p. 5, (La.7/1/97), 700 So.2d 810 (although 86.33% (120 out of 139) potential jurors possessed some knowledge about the crime, most had only a vague recollection of the surrounding facts); State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503, 513 (La.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 911, 106 S.Ct. 281, 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985) (a majority of prospective jurors (i.e. 24 of 39)[61.5%], admitted exposure to pretrial publicity.... A review of the responses of the potential jurors on voir dire does not reveal the existence of collective community prejudice which could have denied defendant a fair trial before impartial jurors.); State v. Rodrigue, 409 So.2d 556, 559 (La.1982) (In a mock voir dire set up in order to determine the impact of media coverage, 26 of 30 prospective jurors (86%) had read about the case; the court ultimately determined a jury could be chosen in that parish). Compare State v. Clark, 442 So.2d 1129, 1133 (La.1983) (motion for change of venue granted based on dry run voir dire in which 37 of 38 jurors (97%) recalled details of crime).