Opinion ID: 1624645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred by failing to change the venue of the trial.

Text: ¶ 28. Neal contends that he was denied a fair trial because the judge and the jury pool all knew sufficient information about the highly publicized and naturally attention-grabbing decapitation murder. He argues that he was entitled to a change of venue. As the State points out, Neal never moved for a change of venue, nor did he even minimally comply with the statutory requirements. [A]n application for change of venue must conform strictly to the statute. Baldwin v. State, 732 So.2d 236, 241 (Miss.1999). The governing statute, Mississippi Code Section 99-15-35, requires that the prisoner make a sworn, written application supported by the affidavits of at least two credible persons attesting to the fact that the prisoner will be unable to receive a fair and impartial trial in the county where the offense is charged because of pretrial publicity or ill will toward the defendant by the general public. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-15-35 (Rev.2007). [T]he defendant is required to make some showing by testimony of local citizens that he cannot receive a fair trial in the community. Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305, 320 (Miss.1986). Because Neal never applied for a change of venue in the trial court, he is procedurally barred from raising this argument on appeal. Wilson v. State, 797 So.2d 277, 284 (Miss.Ct.App.2001).