Opinion ID: 1133490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Presumed Prejudice, Actual Prejudice, and the Reasonable Probability of Prejudice

Text: {45} House argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not have sufficient evidence to support its decision to move the trial from Taos County. The applicable statute, Section 38-3-6, states that [a] second change of venue shall not be allowed in any civil or criminal case, as a matter of right, but shall be within the discretion of the court. This statute controls our evaluation of the move to Doņa Ana County. However, the exact nature of the trial court's discretion has not, with the exception of the Court of Appeals majority opinion below, been construed by our appellate courts. The majority below, in discussing this statute, noted that the court's discretion should be guided by its obligation to ensure that the parties receive a fair trial from an unbiased, impartial jury and, more dubiously, posited that the fact that venue has already been changed once can weigh against a second change of venue. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 7, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. It is true that in State v. Alaniz , we stated that the trial court need only determine whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the party seeking a new venue will not secure a fair and impartial trial. Alaniz, 55 N.M. at 318-19, 232 P.2d at 986. However, these words were not directed at the statute at issue in this case. They refer to Section 38-3-3, which deals only with a first-and not a second-change of venue. As the assessment of Section 38-3-6 in the majority opinion below indicates, there is some dispute as to whether the standards that apply to a first change of venue should also apply to a second. {46} House seizes upon this ambiguity by raising the distinction between actual prejudice and presumed prejudice. These are concepts applied by federal courts. Actual prejudice requires a direct investigation into the attitudes of potential jurors. Under this inquiry, the court will conduct a voir dire of prospective jurors to establish whether there is such widespread and fixed prejudice within the jury pool that a fair trial in that venue would be impossible. United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 732 (4th Cir.1991). Presumed prejudice, on the other hand, addresses the effect of publicity about a crime upon the entire community where the trial takes place. Under this inquiry, a change of venue should be granted if evidence shows that the community is so saturated with inflammatory publicity about the crime that it must be presumed that the trial proceedings are tainted. United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1523 (9th Cir.1992), overruled implicitly on other grounds by United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.1997). However, the same standard of review applies to the trial court's decision-a determination based upon substantial evidence in the record-whether a venue change is based upon presumed or actual prejudice. But see Snell v. Lockhart, 14 F.3d 1289, 1294 (8th Cir.1994) (A higher standard must be met when a petitioner seeks habeas relief on the basis of presumed prejudice.). Thus, actual prejudice is based upon direct evidence of bias in the minds of individual prospective jurors, while presumed prejudice makes inferences about the effect of publicity on the community as a whole. {47} There was some skepticism in the Court of Appeals opinion below as to the applicability of the distinction between actual and presumed prejudice. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 17, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737; House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 78-80, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. Nevertheless, though it depreciated this distinction, the majority below implicitly invoked an actual-prejudice standard by stating that there should have been an attempt to seat a jury in Taos before granting a venue change. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 42, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 (stating we believe it is vitally important that the district court make an attempt to select a new jury from Taos County before ordering a change of venue). But see id. ķ 118 (stating this Court must determine whether the pretrial publicity in this case raised a presumption of prejudice  (emphasis added)). Conversely, the trial court concluded that the likelihood of prejudice in Taos County was so overwhelming that the probability of unfairness could be established without voir dire. As Judge Blackmer stated, the findings showed  a strong probability that if a THIRD trial of this case were to be held in Taos County, a fair trial (and a fair and impartial jury) cannot be obtained. Venue Order, slip op. at 6-7 (Finding of Fact 11) (emphasis added). House claims that the trial court abused its discretion by applying a presumed-prejudice standard when it should have, as indicated by the majority below, applied an actual-prejudice standard and held voir dire in Taos. {48} Regarding the nature of the trial court's discretion under Section 38-3-6, we conclude that the parameters that apply to a first change of venue should also apply to a second. Thus the trial court, in following Section 38-3-6, should rely upon the indicia found in Section 38-3-3(A)(2): undue influence by the adverse party over the minds of the inhabitants of the county, public excitement, local prejudice, and any other cause showing that a fair trial cannot be obtained in the county in which the case is pending. As indicated above, the trial court should apply a reasonable-probability standard of proof when balancing conflicting claims regarding the likelihood of a fair trial in a particular venue. {49} We emphasize that our holding in this case is founded on the requirement set forth in Section 38-3-6. In other words, the venue issue before us turns on whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a second venue change to Doņa Ana County. However, we do not believe that, by itself, a finding of a reasonable probability of unfairness in Taos brings us any closer to a resolution of the claims of the parties, the rationale of the trial court's Order Changing Venue For Trial, and the conflicting arguments of the majority and dissent in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. House's arguments cannot be so summarily dismissed. Because of the highly contentious evidence in the record, as well as the disparity of opinion among, not only the parties, but members of the judiciary, we must comprehensively analyze whether voir dire was essential to determining the reasonable probability of a fair trial in Taos. We conclude that differentiating actual and presumptive prejudice is useful in evaluating the parameters of Section 38-3-6. As discussed below, New Mexico's venue statutes require a different standard of proof than would be required in federal courts under the presumptive prejudice standard. Based upon New Mexico venue laws, we conclude, contrary to the arguments of House and the majority of the Court of Appeals, that the trial court's implicit finding of presumed prejudice in Taos County is supported by substantial evidence. See House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 26, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737.