Opinion ID: 2465545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: prejudicial pre-trial publicity can demonstrably support a change of venue in new mexico

Text: {35} The New Mexico Constitution guarantees every defendant a fair trial by an impartial jury. See N.M. Const. art. II, § 14 (as amended 1994) (guaranteeing an impartial jury); N.M. Const. art. II, § 18 (as amended 1972) (due process and equal protection). Section 38-3-3 helps effectuate these guaranties. That statute provides, in pertinent part: The venue in all civil and criminal cases shall be changed, upon motion, to another county free from exception: . . . B. when the party moving for a change files in the case an affidavit of himself, his agent or attorney, that he believes he cannot obtain a fair trial in the county in which the case is pending because: . . . (2) the inhabitants of the county are prejudiced against the party; (3) of public excitement or local prejudice in the county in regard to the case or the questions involved in the case, an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county to try the case. Section 38-3-3. A court may require evidence in support of a motion to change venue in addition to the affidavit, even when it is made for the first time, and even when it is made by a defendant. See NMSA 1978, § 38-3-5 (1929); State v. House, 1999-NMSC-014, ¶ 29, 127 N.M. 151, 978 P.2d 967; State v. Lunn, 88 N.M. 64, 70, 537 P.2d 672, 678 (Ct.App.1975). {36} Child asserts that he was not required to conclusively prove that it was impossible for him to obtain a fair trial in San Juan County for the district court to grant his motion. Further, he claims that he made a sufficient showing to the district court that he could not obtain an impartial jury in San Juan County on the basis of the presumed prejudicial effect of pre-trial publicity on the county's citizens. {37} Child is correct that presumed prejudice based on pre-trial publicity can support a change of venue in New Mexico. Certainly, there is no requirement in our constitution, statutes, or case law that a venue change should be supported by proof of actual prejudice through voir dire. House, 1999-NMSC-014, ¶ 55, 127 N.M. 151, 978 P.2d 967. Rather, it can be sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that a fair trial cannot be obtained in a particular venue. Id. ¶ 57. Further, we have explained that sufficient [p]rejudice may be established if a community is so saturated by a barrage of inflammatory and biased publicity, close to the beginning of legal proceedings, that the trial inevitably takes place in an atmosphere of intense public passion. Under such circumstances there is a reasonable probability that prospective jurors were exposed to the sensational publicity, as well as the emotional atmosphere in the community, and that many of them are strongly predisposed for or against one of the parties in the case. Id. ¶ 58 (citations omitted). {38} This presumed form of prejudice is adequate to support a change of venue whenever the publicity is demonstrably prejudicial, id. ¶ 57, and close to the beginning of legal proceedings, id. ¶ 58. In House, we went to great lengths to discuss the many factors that courts consider when determining whether prejudice from pretrial publicity has evolved to such a degree that a fair trial is improbable, and a motion for a change of venue should be granted on the basis of presumed prejudice. Id. ¶ 59; see id. ¶¶ 59-75 (discussing factors such as the neutrality of publicity, its timing in relation to the start of trial, its form and source, and the size of the community). The assessment of all factors that may be relevant to a particular case remains the proper method for district courts to utilize in resolving competing claims over the need for a change of venue due to presumed prejudice based on pre-trial publicity.