Opinion ID: 1816335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the court abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a change of venue

Text: Prior to trial and pursuant to sec. 956.03, Stats., the defendant moved for a change of the place of trial. Sec. 956.03 (3), provides:  COMMUNITY PREJUDICE. If a defendant who is charged with a felony files his affidavit that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county, the court may change the venue of the action to any county where an impartial trial can be had.... Attached to the defendant's motion for change of venue were six newspaper clippings related to the defendant's case. The clippings were recognized by the judge as being from two Milwaukee papers. Three of the clippings referred to an earlier hearing to suppress lineup identification. Another stated that there was an attempted rape and a robbery of a fifty-five year old woman in the 200 block of E. Center st. However, neither the name of the assailant nor the victim was stated. Other articles named Clarke as having been identified by the fifty-five year old woman and also stated that Clarke was involved in other rape and robbery charges. Another clipping bore the heading, Arrests Solve Rape Cases, Police Say. In that article, it is stated that Clarke was charged with two counts of rape and two of armed robbery. The police are quoted as saying that two rapes and an attempted rape were solved with the arrest of the suspect. The motion for change of venue was denied, but the trial judge concluded that the effects of these stories could best be analyzed on voir dire. We have frequently said that a motion for a change of venue is directed to the discretion of the trial court and that this court will not interfere unless an abuse of that discretion is demonstrated. State v. Kramer (1969), 45 Wis. 2d 20, 171 N. W. 2d 919; State v. Laabs (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 162, 161 N. W. 2d 249; Miller v. State (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 777, 151 N. W. 2d 688; State v. Nutley (1964), 24 Wis. 2d 527, 129 N. W. 2d 155, certiorari denied, 380 U. S. 918, 85 Sup. Ct. 912, 13 L. Ed. 2d 803. In State v. Kramer, supra , we undertook an extensive review of this court's history and policy in regard to  motions for change of venue. We pointed out that this court places much weight on the trial judge's appraisal of community prejudice and that his judgment reflects consideration of many factors that cannot be revealed in the pages of the record. We therein discussed the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press, which are critical of overdeference to the trial judge's determination in this respect. We concluded that the proper test on the review of the trial judge's exercise of discretion with respect to such motion is: If the evidence elicited, properly considered, gives rise to the reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had, it is an abuse of discretion to fail to grant a change of venue. State v. Kramer, supra, page 30. We have carefully examined the record herein, and we find that there is no evidence that these rather short articles infected the community with prejudice. No evidence has been presented to show a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial could not be held in Milwaukee county.