Opinion ID: 1133490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: House's Proposed Standards of Review

Text: {35} In contravention of these principles of review, House argues that decisions under our venue statutes are mixed question of law and fact and that we should review under a de novo analysis rather than an abuse-of-discretion analysis. See State v. Attaway, 117 N.M. 141, 145-46, 870 P.2d 103, 107-08 (1994). In other words, he asks us not to defer to the trial court's appraisal of the evidence, but rather to look anew at all the evidence and arguments in the record and apply our own judgment in weighing the facts and assessing their legal significance. See McNair v. Lend Lease Trucks, Inc., 62 F.3d 651, 654 (4th Cir.1995) (evidentiary assessment); Slaughter v. Martin, 9 Ala.App. 285, 63 So. 689, 690 (1913) (judgment). Most certainly, we address no question that is purely factual or purely legal; all questions are, to varying degrees, a combination of the two. However, in the case of a venue determination, the question is primarily one of fact. While the legal concept of a fair and impartial trial is a standard against which we measure the trial court's decision, it is a standard that makes sense only with reference to the specific facts concerning the fairness and impartiality of a particular venue. Whether or not a fair impartial trial is possible in a particular venue is established by substantial evidenceâ a factual standardâ and this evidence forms the basis upon which we affirm or reverse a trial court's exercise of discretion in setting venue. See Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 313, 551 P.2d 1354, 1360 (1976) (Our review of the evidence is only for the purpose of determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the trier of the facts.).
{36} Because the choice of venue is founded on the constitutional guarantee of a fair and impartial trial, House also argues that we should apply a heightened standard of proof in assessing the trial court's venue decision. It seems that House is asking us to evaluate the trial court's venue determination using the traditional heightened, or intermediate, as it is sometimes called, constitutional standard of scrutiny. See, e.g., Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ķ 15, 125 N.M. 721, 965 P.2d 305 (defining intermediate scrutiny). As we explain below, in most circumstances, the movant must demonstrate no more than a reasonable probability that a fair and impartial trial is unlikely in a particular venue. No New Mexico authority suggests that, in reviewing a change of venue, we should renounce a reasonable probability standard for a more rigorous constitutional analysis. Furthermore, as we explain below, the standards for assessing the constitutionality of a venueâ which consists of an entire geographical regionâ are far different from the constitutional standards for the venire and the petit jury consisting of small groups of people who are actually present at the trial of the accused. A change of venue caused by pretrial publicity simply does not invoke the same constitutional urgency regarding the location of a trial and the composition of a jury as do other questions, such as the purposeful exclusion of a particular race from the jury pool. Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 426-27, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed.2d 493 (1991) (stating questions about racial prejudice in voir dire are essential while questions about pretrial publicity are not necessarily so). {37} Nevertheless, House insists that this Court has expressly renounced the reasonable probability analysis for a clear and present danger test in determining whether pretrial publicity has deprived a defendant of a fair trial. For support he takes out of context a somewhat ambiguous passage in Twohig v. Blackmer , the offshoot of this case in which House's attorney challenged the constitutionality of Judge Blackmer's first gag order. House seizes upon the statement from Twohig that the inquiry is the same regardless of whether a court is analyzing the constitutionality of a gag order, considering the propriety of disciplinary action, or determining whether pretrial publicity was so pervasive as to deprive a criminal defendant of a fair trial. Twohig, 1996-NMSC-023, ķ 16, 121 N.M. 746, 918 P.2d 332 (citations omitted, emphasis added). This sentence appears in a paragraph which mentions alternative tests or standards of review for permissible restrictions on attorney speech, including the clear and present danger test. However, the inquiry being discussed in this passage is not a particular standard of review. Rather, the inquiry is the process in which a court balances the danger and evil that could result from a particular utterance against the need for free and unfettered expression. Id. (quoting Gentile v. State Bar, 501 U.S. 1030, 1036, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991) (quoting Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 843, 98 S.Ct. 1535, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978))). This statement merely notes that, in all three circumstances mentioned, courts will attempt to find the balance between harmful speech and freedom of speech. The dissent below has offered a similar analysis of these words. See House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, n. 1, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. This passage does not in any way intimate that we should renounce our longstanding application of the abuse-of-discretion analysis in evaluating a venue change. It is certainly no endorsement of the clear and present danger test which has rarely, if ever, been stretched beyond First Amendment speech issues to include the appraisal of venue determinations. See generally Ernest H. Schopler, Annotation, Supreme Court's development of the clear and present danger rule and the related rule concerning advocacy of unlawful acts as limitations on the constitutional right of free speech and press, 38 L.Ed.2d 835 (1974). {38} House further confounds the standards of proof for restraints of speech with those for venue changes when he emphasizes that in Twohig we concluded that the gag order placed upon the parties in this case was an unconstitutional prior restraint because there was a complete lack of factual findings to support the conclusion that such an order was necessary to preserve the parties' right to a fair trial. Twohig, 1996-NMSC-023, ķ 28, 121 N.M. 746, 918 P.2d 332. In contrast, the exact same evidence of pretrial publicity that was found non-prejudicial in a free-speech analysis was found by the trial court to be prejudicial in a venue analysis. House calls this conflicting use of identical evidence astonishing. The majority below noted this seeming anomaly. See House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 35-36, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. This is not anomalous. Unlike the rigorous constitutional test that must be satisfied in order to impose a prior restraint of speech, we do notâ except, as discussed below, in one circumstance immaterial to this discussionâ require more than a reasonable probability that a fair trial cannot be obtained in a particular venue. See Deats v. State, 80 N.M. 77, 79, 451 P.2d 981, 984 (1969); Alaniz, 55 N.M. at 318-19, 232 P.2d at 986. The standard of proof in Twohig has no application to this case. Evidence that does not justify prior restraint of speech can, without contradiction, support a change of venue.
{39} The majority in the case below caused some controversy with its statement that when the state does elect to move for a change of venue it carries a heavy burden to show that public sentiment is such that a fair and impartial trial is improbable. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 21, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. The majority explained that this heavy burden is a product of the State's unique position as an opposing party that must nevertheless insure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Id. ķ 21, 232 P.2d 982. Citing our early venue cases State v. Archer, 32 N.M. at 323, 255 P. at 398, and State v. Holloway, 19 N.M. at 546-47, 146 P. at 1071-72, the majority noted that the State must demonstrate . . . a high degree of prejudice against Defendant before it can successfully move to change venue for Defendant's benefit and against his wishes. House Majority 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 30, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. House has introduced similar arguments. {40} In this context, the majority was concerned by the State's arguments that it could not receive a fair trial in Taos while House claimed he suffered no prejudice in that venue. The majority emphasized that because the State sought a venue change over the adamant objections of the defendant, it must show strong proof to support its claim that Taos was not an impartial venue. Id. ķķ 22-23. The majority warned that the courts should guard against an abuse of the state's power when the state moves for a change of venue, implicitly evoking the almost limitless resources and power of the State to pursue prosecution that, if abused, few defendants could hope to combat. Id. ķ 21. {41} The majority has not precisely characterized the State's burden. In most circumstances, the movant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that a fair and impartial trial is unlikely in a particular venue. See Deats, 80 N.M. at 79, 451 P.2d at 984 (stating that evidence supporting a venue-change motion must be persuasive of the probability that a fair trial cannot be obtained in the county where the cause is pending (emphasis added)); Alaniz, 55 N.M. at 318-19, 232 P.2d at 986 ([I]t 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. (emphasis added)); People v. Proctor, 4 Cal.4th 499, 15 Cal. Rptr.2d 340, 842 P.2d 1100, 1113 (1992) ([The] defendant failed to carry his burden of proving there was a reasonable likelihood that jurors drawn from Shasta County would have formed such fixed opinions as a result of the pretrial publicity that they could not make the required determinations with impartiality. (emphasis added)). {42} However, when the State moves for a change of venue over the defendant's objections, the nature of the State's burden depends upon whether the venue from which it seeks a change is the constitutional vicinage in which the crime allegedly occurred. The constitutional right to a trial in the district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed rests solely with the accused. See N.M. Const. art. II, § 14. The State has no equivalent constitutional right. Thus, when the State, against the defendant's objections, exercises its statutory right under Section 38-3-3 to move the trial from this constitutional vicinage, it must demonstrate why the defendant's constitutional right should be overridden. Under these circumstances the State bears a greater burden of proof than that applicable to other venue motions. Ashley v. State, 72 Fla. 137, 72 So. 647, 648 (1916) (Where an application in a criminal prosecution for a change of venue from the county where the crime was committed is made by the prosecuting attorney, and the accused objects thereto, the matter should be tested in some way so as to make it to clearly appear that it is practically impossible to obtain an impartial jury to try the accused in that county.). The State bears a greater burden than mere probability when the vicinage is involved. See Commonwealth v. Reilly, 324 Pa. 558, 188 A. 574, 580 (1936) ([T]he prosecution's request for a change [from the constitutional vicinage] should be much more strictly scrutinized than one by the accused; before the court is moved to act, there should be the most imperative grounds.); State v. Manning, 329 S.C. 1, 495 S.E.2d 191, 195 (1997) ([B]ecause a defendant's right to be tried in the county where the alleged offense occurred is defeated when the prosecution's request for a change of venue is granted, a court should exercise great care and deliberation when changing venue at the request of the prosecution, and the state's motion and evidence supporting its motion should be strictly scrutinized to ensure the defendant's right is not abused.). {43} We conclude that, when moving, over the defendant's objections, for a change of venue from the district in which the crime allegedly occurred, the prosecution must prove with clear and convincing evidence that a fair trial in that district is a practical impossibility. Cf. Higginbotham v. State, 88 Fla. 26, 101 So. 233, 239 (1924) ([A]ny attempt to deprive the accused of his right to be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except where it is practically impossible to procure an impartial jury, and this practical impracticability is established by an actual test . . . is in violation of the Constitution.); Ashley, 72 So. at 649 ([W]hen upon a counter showing it does not clearly and affirmatively appear that an impartial jury to try the accused cannot be obtained in the county where the crime is alleged to have been committed, the application to change the venue should be denied.). [C]lear and convincing evidence is something stronger than a mere preponderance and yet something less than beyond a reasonable doubt. For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder's mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true. In re Sedillo, 84 N.M. 10, 12, 498 P.2d 1353, 1355 (1972) (citation omitted, quoting In re Palmer, 72 N.M. 305, 308, 383 P.2d 264, 267 (1963)). {44} Though House argues otherwise, these principles do not apply to this case. As we discuss in detail below, Bernalillo County is the constitutional vicinage in this case. With his motion to change venue before the first trial, House waived his constitutional right to be tried in that venue. See State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 728 (Tenn. 1994) (We conclude that the change of venue motion constitutes a waiver of [the defendant's constitutional vicinage] rights.). There is no constitutional basis for House to demand a trial in Taos County. See State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12, 35 (1986) (stating that the defendant waived [his constitutional vicinage] right when he requested a change of venue). Section 38-3-6 provides that a second change of venue, whether requested by the defendant or the State, shall be in the trial court's discretion. This statute makes no requirement that the State meet a heavier burden of proof than a criminal defendant. Thus, before the third trial, the State needed to provide evidence demonstrating a reasonable probability that it could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in Taos County.