Opinion ID: 1356485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Venue and jury voir dire

Text: Defendant was tried in Lassen County, a rural community with a population slightly under 15,000. The killings received newspaper and radio coverage in the county. Defendant's trial counsel did not move for a change of venue or raise any issue about jury bias. (19) `A defendant may not claim for the first time on appeal that he was deprived of a fair trial before an unbiased jury because of newspaper publicity where with full knowledge of the publicity he made no objection and failed to move for a change of venue.' ( People v. Hillery (1974) 10 Cal.3d 897, 899-900 [112 Cal. Rptr. 524, 519 P.2d 572], quoting People v. Walker (1967) 247 Cal. App.2d 554, 563 [55 Cal. Rptr. 726].) Nothing in the record indicates that counsel's action was due to incompetence. Contrary to defense counsel's contention on appeal, the jury voir dire by both the trial judge and counsel was extensive. It is likely that defendant's trial counsel was satisfied that the jury would give his client a fair trial. Under those circumstances, the trial court fully discharged its duty to assure selection of a fair and unbiased jury.