Opinion ID: 1655478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in failing to transfer the matter to the first judicial district of hinds county.

Text: ¶ 20. Jones argues that his motion to transfer venue should have been granted because his previous mental troubles were common knowledge in the Second Judicial District. In response to his motion, the trial court stated, [C]ertainly if in the voir dire of the jurors it turns out that there are a significant number of jurors that are familiar with the facts of the case I would sustain your motion. But at this time if we are able to have enough jurors to try the case without them having knowledge of the charges, then the Court will try it here. So I would consider your motion after we hear the voir dire of the jurors. ¶ 21. During voir dire, the concerns were addressed. As such, the trial judge, fully acting within his sound discretion, determined that a change of venue was unnecessary. Baldwin v. State, 732 So.2d 236, 241 (Miss.1999). Jones has done nothing to show that the judge abused his discretion. This assignment of error is without merit.