Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the court err in denying frank, sr.'s motion for a change of venue or a continuance?

Text: Frank, Sr. argues the court should have sustained his motion in view of pervasive community hostility and pre-trial publicity which undermined his rights to an impartial jury and a fair trial. His sworn motion is supported by the affidavits of one W.M. Henson and defense attorney, W.W. Odom, Jr., as well as being buttressed by the introduction of numerous newspaper accounts of the crime. Granting or denying change of venue is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its action will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 454 (Miss. 1984); Wilcher v. State, 448 So.2d 927, 930 (Miss. 1984). In overruling Frank, Sr.'s motion for change of venue the trial court noted, Normally a motion for change of venue is heard before the jury is impanelled and voir dired and also the rules of the court provide that motions of this type should be filed by the first day of the term. I think this case has been set for trial now approximately one month or five weeks, ... and this is the third week of the term and the motion has not been brought up until today when the jury came in and the special venire reported. The court stated further that only five of the 80 prospective jurors had indicated they had heard of the case and formed an opinion about it. We assume, since the issue is not raised, that none of the five were called as jurors to decide the case. From these facts, we cannot say that the trial court abused its judicial discretion in denying Frank, Sr.'s motion.