Opinion ID: 1598146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Welde's motion for change of venue.

Text: ¶ 21. The decision to grant or deny a motion for change of venue is within the discretion of the trial judge. McCune v. State, 989 So.2d 310, 316 (Miss. 2008). This Court `will not disturb the ruling of the lower court where the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. ...' Id. (quoting Mingo v. State, 944 So.2d 18, 30 (Miss.2006)). ¶ 22. Upon filing an application for change of venue supported by two affidavits affirming the defendant's inability to receive a fair trial, there arises a presumption that an impartial jury cannot be obtained. King v. State, 960 So.2d 413, 429-430 (Miss.2007); see also Miss.Code Ann. § 99-15-35 (Rev.2007). This Court has set forth certain elements which, when present, would serve as an indicator to the trial court as to when the presumption is irrebuttable. King, 960 So.2d at 429-430 (quoting White v. State, 495 So.2d 1346, 1349 (Miss.1986)). One such element is whether the case is a capital case, based on a heightened standard of review. Id. This Court has since held, however, that [a] motion for a change of venue is not automatically granted in a capital case and is largely a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Davis v. State, 767 So.2d 986, 993 (Miss.2000) (citing Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 65 (Miss.1998)). ¶ 23. The State may rebut the presumption that an impartial jury cannot be obtained by proving from voir dire that the trial court impaneled an impartial jury. Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 336 (Miss.1997) (citing Harris v. State, 537 So.2d 1325, 1329 (Miss.1989)). If the State demonstrates such, this Court will not overturn the trial court's finding that an impartial jury could be found, despite adverse publicity. Id. Further, this Court has held that a circuit judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion for a change of venue when during voir dire, numerous venire members indicated that they had read news accounts or had seen television newscasts regarding the case, and the only one who indicated that she had already formed an opinion as to how the case should be decided was excused. McCune, 989 So.2d at 318. ¶ 24. In accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-15-35, Welde filed an amended motion for change of venue. Attached were two affidavits from citizens who stated that Welde could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Itawamba County. The motion noted the numerous newspaper articles and television stories discussing the case, published prior to Welde's indictment, citing the circulation of the newspapers and the broadcast area of the television stations as reasons for the inability to obtain an impartial jury. ¶ 25. During the pretrial hearing, the state presented five witnesses, all members of the Itawamba County Board of Supervisors, each testifying that Welde could, in fact, receive a fair and impartial trial in Itawamba County. The court reserved ruling on the motion pending voir dire examination. ¶ 26. The venire was questioned as to whether they recalled any news media coverage regarding the case. Those prospective jurors who responded affirmatively were subjected to individual voir dire as to whether they had formed a fixed opinion based upon the coverage. Only one prospective juror stated that he had formed a fixed opinion, and he was subsequently stricken for cause from the jury pool. In addition, during the state's voir dire questioning, each prospective juror agreed that the defendant would be presumed innocent until the evidence proved otherwise. ¶ 27. After voir dire, the trial court instructed the prospective jurors that it was their duty to refrain from watching, reading, or listening to any news media coverage regarding the case. The jury was sequestered for the duration of the trial and sentencing. ¶ 28. Through the pre-trial hearing and voir dire, the state presented evidence that an impartial jury could be obtained in Itawamba County. Moreover, the prospective jurors stated that they were, in fact, impartial and unaffected by media coverage of the case. [T]his Court will treat with deference a venire person's assertions of impartiality. Holland, 705 So.2d at 336 (citing Scott v. Ball, 595 So.2d 848, 850 (Miss.1992)). ¶ 29. Where ... the evidence is conflicting on the question of whether or not the defendant could receive a fair and impartial trial, this Court will generally defer to the considered opinion of the trial judge. Burrell v. State, 613 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Miss.1993). There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the jurors were not fair and impartial. The trial judge took appropriate steps, through voir dire, jury instruction, and sequestration, to ensure that the defendant's right to a fair trial was preserved. This Court, therefore, finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Welde's motion for change of venue.