Opinion ID: 2630451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a change of venue?

Text: [¶ 23] Prior to trial, the appellant filed a Motion for Change of Venue, setting forth the following contentions: 1. This matter has received an extraordinary amount of media coverage, particularly in the local newspaper. 2. Attached hereunto, and incorporated into this document by this reference are copies of the newspaper stories this case has generated. 3. The local talk radio show has spent a great deal of time discussing this case, however it is impossible to determine the level of prejudice this has generated. 4. The guilty conviction in Case No. 4575 has only served to exacerbate the level of media coverage, and resultant public prejudice against the Defendant. [9] 5. Due to the level of media coverage in this case, and the nature of the coverage, it is impossible to seat an unbiased jury in this matter. [¶ 24] The motion was heard on January 19, 2007. Defense counsel argued that the threat of the death penalty required heightened due process, that venue had been changed in nearly every recent death penalty case in Wyoming, that a Campbell County jury pool would have knowledge of the appellant's conviction in the Forquer murder case and of the sexual assault allegations, that inconvenience to the court and the parties could not justify denial of the motion, and that the appellant could not receive a fair trial in Campbell County. The State responded primarily that a decision on the motion was premature, inasmuch as no attempt had yet been made to seat a local jury. [¶ 25] The district court issued a decision letter on January 30, 2007, denying the motion to change venue. The court indicated that it had reviewed the materials submitted by the appellant relating to the case at hand, as well as the related cases involving Martinez, Hicks, and Seiser. The court found the publicity to be generally factual in nature and not so prejudicial as to prevent a fair trial. The court also noted that selection of a jury in the Forquer murder trial two months earlier had taken only a little more than one day and was relatively easy. Finally, the court denied the motion but offered to revisit it in the event that voir dire revealed that recent publicity necessitated a venue change. The order of denial was filed on February 2, 2007. [¶ 26] The decision letter and order did not end the venue question. Despite the district court's painstaking method of jury selection, the appellant repeatedly renewed his motion to change venue. The complicated jury selection process went generally as follows: The Clerk of District Court sent out 410 questionnaires to potential jurors. The district court then held periodic status conferences to determine the number of available jurors, and asked counsel to stipulate to the removal of potential jurors for cause shown in returned questionnaires. On February 21, 2007, counsel submitted just such a stipulation, removing 66 jurors for cause. A second stipulation removed an additional 106 jurors. Numerous others were excused by the court for cause unrelated to the case. Eventually, about 15 jurors were examined each day for nine days, with both general and individual voir dire. A final panel of 49 potential jurors was determined on March 16, 2007. [¶ 27] The Appellant renewed his venue motion on March 16, 2007, alleging that even the 49 remaining jurors were biased due to exposure to prejudicial and inflammatory publicity about the case. In denying the motion, the district court described the wide latitude that had been allowed counsel during voir dire, described how the court had listened carefully to responses from the panel and had watched for demeanor that belied verbal responses, and opined that the final panel was fit and proper to serve. The court then indicated that, it being Friday, it would allow three additional questions to be asked of the 49 potential jurors on Monday: (1) whether they had read anything about the case; (2) whether they knew other people on the panel; and (3) whether anyone had talked to them about the case. Finally, the court stated that, if all 49 persons remained on the panel, the appellant would get 18 peremptory challenges, the State would get 17 peremptory challenges, two alternates would be selected by random drawing, and the remaining 12 would be the jurors. [¶ 28] Monday morning's court session began with the district court having all the potential jurors stand and introduce themselves by name. The court then asked the panel as a whole the three questions noted above, with each juror who responded positively to any question being further questioned individually in private. As a result of that process, the district court excused six members of the venire, leaving 43. The parties next exercised their peremptory challenges, with the appellant having 15 challenges and the State 14. The court then denied another renewed motion for change of venue, with the following explanation: THE COURT: Well, and so the record will be clear, that of the five that I sent out of here today that I excused, I excused them without even asking them the threshold question, whether that would make an impact on their ability to judge this case. [10] I dismissed them out of hand for reading those news articles. I must have asked at least five times  four or five times to bring those people forward. And, again, if I'd have had more, if we'd gotten over the line, I told you last week what I would do. And I have to admit that the Court was disappointed by the fact that we had people that read those articles. It appeared to me that in calling them up here and giving them numerous chances between whether it was mere inconvenience or something else, I think we addressed everything that was humanly possible in this courtroom today. With regard, again, [Defense Counsel], to the numbers of people that may or may not have heard about this case, the people that knew anything significant about this case, if anything, it's shocking to the Court that so many people knew so little about it. If anything, that was what was shocking to me. I fully  while I had no preconceived notion about what was going to happen when we started this process, I had at least a reasonable expectation that we would not be trying this case here. And as I indicated last week, if we'd have gotten to the end of week one and had no real prospect of seating a jury, I would have ended it there and we would have moved this case someplace else. If anything, that turned out not to be true, in the vernacular, in spades. While people may or may not have heard this or that, it's amazing to me how many people had heard nothing about the case. So I'm going to deny, once again, the motion for change of venue. I've, in structuring this, tried to use an abundance of caution. I gave both sides extra peremptory challenges, as I indicated I would do last week. I gave the defense the odd number in this, so the defense would have three extra peremptories as opposed to State's two. And we have the  our 14 people now. Hopefully, we won't have any more problems, but if we do, gentlemen, trust me, I will revisit it promptly. [The] Court takes this matter very seriously and takes the integrity of the panel very seriously, and hopefully I have done so throughout the process. [¶ 29] We recently reiterated our standard for reviewing the denial of a motion for change of venue. Because the appellant so strenuously pursued a change of venue in the instant case, and because even the district court recognized early on in the proceedings that venue might have to be changed, we will once again set forth that review standard in detail: Article 1, Section 10 of the Wyoming Constitution provides that criminal defendants are entitled to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. In turn, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-7-102(a) (LexisNexis 2007) requires that [e]very criminal case shall be tried in the county in which the indictment or offense charged is found, except as otherwise provided by law. Finally, W.R.Cr.P. 18 provides that, [e]xcept as otherwise permitted by statute or by these rules, the prosecution shall take place in the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.... Notwithstanding these mandates, W.R.Cr.P. 21(a) allows for trial elsewhere in the event of local prejudice that is too great for the defendant to receive a fair trial: (a) Prejudice within county.  Upon timely motion of the defendant, the court shall transfer the proceeding as to that defendant to another county, but only if the court is satisfied that there exists within the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county. .... We have identified the following standard for reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for change of venue: We review the denial of a motion for change of venue under an abuse of discretion standard, meaning we will not interfere with the trial court's decision unless the trial court acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Nixon v. State, 994 P.2d 324, 326-27 (Wyo.1999). The party moving for change of venue has the burden of showing actual prejudice in the minds of the jurors so great that a fair trial cannot be obtained. Id. at 327 .... This Court has adopted a two-part test for determining whether a change of venue should be granted after voir dire because of pre-trial publicity: `First, the nature and extent of the publicity must be considered; second, the difficulty or ease in selecting a jury must be considered along with the amount of prejudice which actually appears during voir dire examination.' Sides [ v. State ], 963 P.2d [227,] 231 [(Wyo.1998)] (quoting Murry [ v. State ], 713 P.2d [202], 208 [(Wyo.1986)]). Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, ¶¶ 26-27, 67 P.3d 1207, 1220 (Wyo.2003). Prejudice will not be presumed from mere local publicity; such presumption will rarely be invoked and only in extreme circumstances. Sanchez v. State, 2006 WY 116, ¶ 13, 142 P.3d 1134, 1139 (Wyo.2006). To require venue to be changed, pre-trial publicity must be so inflammatory as practically to dictate the community's opinion. Id. Carothers v. State, 2008 WY 58, ¶¶ 9, 11, 185 P.3d 1, 8-9 (Wyo.2008). Specifically in regard to high-profile cases with significant publicity, we have said the following: It is to be expected that most of the jury panel will have heard about a sensational case, but there is no requirement that a juror be ignorant of the facts and issues involved in a case. Wilcox v. State, [670 P.2d 1116, 1119 (Wyo.1983)]. The totality of the circumstances must indicate the presence of improper prejudice. Weddle v. State, Wyo., 621 P.2d 231 (1980). The question focuses on whether a fair jury was ultimately selected. Shaffer v. State, [640 P.2d 88, 103 (Wyo.1982)]. We recently reaffirmed these basic principles in Pote v. State, Wyo., 695 P.2d 617 (1985). Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202, 208 (Wyo. 1986). [¶ 30] Having carefully read the transcript of the pretrial hearings and the voir dire process in this case, and having read the materials accompanying the appellant's motion for change of venue, we conclude that the appellant has failed to prove that the district court abused its discretion in denying his initial motion, or any of its multitudinous renewals. The district court clearly was, and remained throughout the proceedings, open-minded about the prospect of a venue change, and carefully monitored jury selection to preserve the appellant's rights in that regard. The extent of the local publicity about this and related cases was considerable, but not remarkable under the circumstances. Further, the publicity was, by and large, factual in nature, being neither inflammatory nor judgmental. The effect of that publicity upon the venire was carefully tested, and the district court found no prejudicial impact. The record bears that out. [¶ 31] It would have been easy for the district court in this case to have avoided the exercise of discretion, to have avoided the undoubted tediousness of protracted voir dire, to have ignored the systemic presumption in favor of local venue for criminal trials, and to have simply granted a change of venue. That did not happen. Instead, the district court devised a very reasonable and effective scheme for unearthing any unfairly prejudicial effect from the publicity engendered by the related crimes. Questionnaires were sent to over 400 individuals, with the parties weeding out by stipulation those persons showing an obvious bias. Of those remaining, the district court allowed extensive and intensive, general and individual, voir dire questioning. The court and counsel even performed a special mini- voir dire to make sure no last-minute publicity had corrupted the panel. The district court took extraordinary precautions to make sure that the jury eventually seated had not been prejudiced by pretrial publicity.