Opinion ID: 883138
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Whether the District Court erred in denying Moore's motions for a change of venue and motion for individual voir dire on the issue of pretrial publicity?

Text: Moore moved for a change of venue on April 24, 1991, alleging that the extensive pretrial publicity his case had received made it impossible for him to receive a fair and impartial trial in Gallatin County. The District Court denied this motion in a Memorandum Opinion filed on January 16, 1992, wherein the court found that up to that point in time, the [p]ress reports of this case have been uniformly professional, free of bias, prejudice, inflammatory matters, and comment. The court however reserved the right to monitor and re-examine the issue during selection of the jury panel. Moore renewed his motion for a change of venue on September 4, 1992. The District Court denied the motion in a written order dated September 24, 1992. Moore also moved the court for individual voir dire on the issue of pretrial publicity. Although the District Court originally granted the motion, it later reversed itself, denied the motion, and required that voir dire be conducted in open court. On appeal, Moore maintains that the District Court erred in denying his motions. This Court will reverse a district court's denial of a motion for change of venue or motion for individual voir dire only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Sunday (1980), 187 Mont. 292, 298, 609 P.2d 1188, 1192. Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury, and failure to provide an impartial tribunal is a violation of due process. U.S. Const. amend. VI, Mont. Const. Art. II, Sec. 24. Additionally, § 46-13-203(1), MCA, permits a defendant to move for a change of venue when there exists in the county in which the charge is pending such prejudice that a fair trial cannot be had in the county. A defendant is entitled to a change of venue if it appears there are reasonable grounds to believe that prejudice exists and that by reason of the prejudice, there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused cannot receive a fair and impartial trial. State v. Link (1981), 194 Mont. 556, 559-60, 640 P.2d 366, 368. A defendant seeking a change of venue on the basis of prejudicial pretrial publicity must prove two elements: (1) that the news reports were inflammatory; and (2) that the news reports actually inflamed the prejudice of the community to an extent that a reasonable possibility exists that the defendant may not receive a fair trial. State v. Bousquet (1991), 248 Mont. 53, 56, 808 P.2d 506, 508. (Citations omitted.) The test requires us to examine whether the publicity was of sufficient inflammatory nature so as to generate a widespread belief among the community of the defendant's guilt. State v. Miller (1988), 231 Mont. 497, 505, 757 P.2d 1275, 1280. This Court has characterized inflammatory publicity as: editorializing on the part of the media or any calculated attempt to prejudice public opinion against [defendant] or to destroy the fairness of the pool from which [the defendant's] prospective jurors would be drawn. State v. Nichols (1987), 225 Mont. 438, 444, 734 P.2d 170, 173-74. (Citation omitted.) Moore alleges that from December 7, 1990, until the time of trial, potential jurors were exposed to approximately one article a week pertaining to Moore and the homicide. These numbers, according to Moore, show the pervasiveness of the publicity. Moore alleges the newspaper articles were inflammatory for a number of reasons. Moore claims that the media: emphasized the grief experienced by the Brisbin family; printed numerous inflammatory remarks from law enforcement officials and prosecutors; and portrayed the DNA evidence as a scientific savior for the State's case. Upon reviewing the numerous newspaper articles submitted by Moore, we do not agree that the newspaper reports were inflammatory. Although a few reports mentioned Rene Brisbin's grief, it is misleading to characterize the reports as emphasizing the family's grief. Regarding the press coverage of the allegedly inflammatory remarks made by the State, the remarks published were statements made during pretrial proceedings or statements concerning the investigation of the case. There was no editorializing on the part of the press in reporting these statements. As to the publicity covering the DNA evidence, given the fact that Moore's case presented the first instance DNA testing was to be used in a Montana homicide trial, it is not surprising that the press would extensively cover this story. In addition, after reviewing the articles concerning the DNA evidence, we conclude that the media presented a balanced view of the issue. For example, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle printed an article on March 10, 1991, entitled Invisible Crime Clues. The article states that DNA fingerprinting has been viewed as virtually foolproof in linking suspects with crimes. However, the article later reports [b]ut DNA testing is far from perfect. Attorneys have begun challenging the process and succeeding, causing the scientific community to reexamine the procedure. Given the balanced reporting of the DNA issue, we conclude that these articles cannot be characterized as inflammatory. Moore also alleges that the media coverage of the suppression hearings was prejudicial to his case. While facially it appears that publication of suppressed statements is prejudicial to a defendant's case, mere allegations of prejudicial pretrial publicity are an insufficient basis on which to grant a motion for a change of venue. Rather, defendant must show that the publicity actually inflamed community prejudice to such an extent that the defendant is denied a fair trial. State v. Ritchson (1982), 199 Mont. 51, 54, 647 P.2d 830, 832. Moore maintains that the public opinion survey he had commissioned demonstrates that he was denied a fair trial. The survey questioned 106 persons in Gallatin County concerning the media's coverage of Moore's case. The survey results showed that 85.8 percent of the respondents had been exposed to media coverage concerning the case. Approximately thirty percent (30.2%) said they had an opinion, while 50.9 percent said they did not have an opinion and 15.1 percent said they did not know. Therefore, two-thirds of the respondents either had not formed an opinion or did not know if they had formed an opinion about the case as a result of the media coverage. Moore relies on State v. Paisley (1983), 204 Mont. 191, 663 P.2d 322, as authority for the proposition that even where a survey does not overwhelmingly indicate the likelihood that a defendant will not receive a fair trial in the county, a defendant may still be entitled to a change of venue. However, Paisley is distinguishable because in that case, the media coverage was inflammatory, while in the instant case it was not. The defendant in Paisley, was charged with both misdemeanor and felony sexual assault. A trial on the misdemeanor charge was held in justice court prior to his being tried on the felony charges. Paisley, 663 P.2d at 323. The trial in justice court received extensive coverage, and upon the justice court's return of a guilty verdict, the local newspaper reported that the justice court judge told the defendant: [T]he evidence presents you as being guilty of more than the particular offense charged. In addition the paper reported that [The judge] said he was amending the formal charge to include misdemeanor charges against [the defendant] that could have resulted from the incidents detailed in the testimony of the witnesses. The witnesses were the alleged victims of the pending felony charges. Paisley, 663 P.2d at 324. As previously discussed, our review of the newspaper articles submitted by Moore evidences that the pretrial publicity in this case was not inflammatory. Unlike the media coverage in Paisley, the newspaper reports did not present Moore as being guilty of the crimes charged before he received his trial. Even Moore concedes in his brief that [t]he results of Dr. Floyd's survey did not overwhelmingly indicate, one way or the other, that Mr. Moore would or would not receive a fair and impartial trial in Gallatin County. Moore's acknowledgement that the survey results were inconclusive combined with the fact that the pretrial publicity was not inflammatory demonstrates that Moore was not denied his right to a fair trial. Moore also contends that because over one-third of the panel immediately excused themselves after being asked if they could not sit fairly on the case for any reason demonstrates the extent and prejudicial nature of the pretrial publicity. However, the record fails to support this claim. Two of the jurors stated the reason they were unable to serve was because they knew someone in the Brisbin family. One juror stated he had knowledge of the case due to his extensive dealings with law enforcement. And two others indicated they could not convict the defendant of homicide unless the State produced the victim's body. The jurors were questioned about their exposure to pretrial publicity. While most indicated they had read or heard something about the case, they all stated they would base their decisions only upon the evidence they received from the witnesses and exhibits presented at trial. Living, as we do, in a society which is continuously inundated with news coverage by the print and broadcast media, it is doubtful that most members of the community will not share some knowledge of, or about, a locally high-profile crime, and the various persons allegedly involved in its commission or in its investigation. Given the inevitable conflict with the media's constitutional right of free speech, the public's constitutional right to know, and the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial, it remains the task of the district court, in such cases, to scrupulously examine the evidence supporting a motion for change of venue to insure that the jurors who will ultimately decide the guilt or innocence of the accused are fair minded and uninfluenced by what they may have seen, heard or read. That conclusion must necessarily be based upon not only the jurors' responses in voir dire, but also on a careful analysis of the quantity and content of the pretrial publicity. Each case is unique and must be decided on its own merits. Bousquet, 808 P.2d at 508. While this was a difficult case, we are nevertheless satisfied that the trial judge conscientiously considered this issue, and that despite the pervasiveness of the media coverage, it was generally balanced and fair. We conclude the jurors who decided Moore's fate were not disposed to guilt or innocence by what they may have seen, heard or read in the media. We further conclude that Moore failed to establish either that the news reports were inflammatory or that the reports actually inflamed the prejudice of the community. Therefore, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moore's motions for a change of venue. Finally, Moore argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion for individual voir dire on the issue of pretrial publicity. The District Court determined that the need for individual voir dire could be assessed during the jury selection process, and permitted individual voir dire upon counsel's request. In deciding whether to close voir dire, this Court has held: Closed voir dire has been found unnecessary where the publicity is factually accurate and contains the essential facts of the crimes which would ultimately be presented to the jury anyway. The trial judge's plan to question individual veniremen in chambers should the need arise would have been adequate had it been properly implemented. This is especially true since the veniremen were cautioned that if they had strong opinions about the case, they should notify the judge. (Citation omitted.) Nichols, 734 P.2d at 174. In the instant case, the court found that the publicity was uniformly professional, free of bias, prejudice, inflammatory matters, and comment. The court also allowed individual voir dire upon counsel's request. Therefore, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moore's motion for individual voir dire.