Opinion ID: 1332784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant Kesler's Enumerations of Error

Text: 7. Defendant Kesler next raises the failure of the court to change venue upon his pretrial motion. The Sixth Amendment provides that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.... [5] The state Constitution similarly provides that Every person charged with an offense against the laws of this State ... shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury. Code Ann. § 2-111. The right to an impartial jury is set forth in both constitutions. Code § 27-1101 provides that criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed except cases in the superior courts where the judge is satisfied that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in such county. Code § 27-1201, et seq., provide the procedure for obtaining a change of venue in criminal cases where an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county where the crime is alleged to have been committed. Code § 27-1201. The phrase impartial jury appears in the constitutions and the Code sections. Being the same, these phrases should be interpreted as meaning the same thing. See Carter v. State, 238 Ga. 446, 447 (233 SE2d 201) (1977). In Street v. State, 237 Ga. 307, 311 (227 SE2d 750) (1976), we concluded regarding motions for change of venue that under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to find that the petitioner did not receive a fair trial, petitioner must show (1) that the setting of the trial was inherently prejudicial or (2) that the jury selection process showed actual prejudice to a degree that rendered a fair trial impossible. The second test involves review of the voir dire examination of potential jurors. See Mooney v. State, 243 Ga. 373, 387-388 (254 SE2d 337) (1979). Conceding that the voir dire here does not show actual prejudice, Kesler urges that the setting of the trial was inherently prejudicial. However, the empanelling of fair and impartial jurors, as demonstrated on voir dire, makes it particularly difficult to show that the setting of the trial was inherently prejudicial. See Potts v. State, 241 Ga. 67 (8) (243 SE2d 510) (1978). Nevertheless we turn to that aspect of Street v. State, supra. Traditionally, a defendant seeking a change of venue on the basis that the setting of the trial is inherently prejudicial relies heavily if not primarily or exclusively on news media reports, particularly newspapers (because they are easier to collect). However, widespread or even adverse publicity is not in itself grounds for a change of venue. United States v. McNally, 485 F2d 398, 403 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 415 U. S. 978 (1974); Mooney v. State, supra, 243 Ga. 373, 387. On appeal, the impact of media publicity is evaluated by various factors, such as the size of the community and the extent of media coverage (number of articles and their circulation); whether it related to the discovery of the crime (e.g., facts regarding the victim) or to the apprehension or interrogation of the defendant (and whether any publicized confession was admitted at trial); the prominence and content of the reports (e.g., facts vs. speculation and emotionalism, and the accuracy and admission into evidence of those facts); and the time interval between the publicity and the trial. Stroble v. California, 343 U. S. 181, 191-195 (72 SC 599, 96 LE 872) (1952); Mooney v. State, supra, 243 Ga. at 385-387; Brooks v. State, 244 Ga. 574, 578-581 (261 SE2d 379) (1979). Although some of these considerations cannot be resolved until the evidence is closed, on appellate review the impact of the pretrial publicity of evidence and the admission of evidence can be compared. See Stroble v. California, supra, 343 U. S. at 195. In support of his contention, Kesler cites the amount of pretrial publicity and local interest in the case as reflected by the newspaper articles, the fact that the district attorney held a news conference, the number of phone calls and letters received by the sheriff's office, that 300 people, mostly local, were interviewed during the investigation, that a local senator requested that the Governor establish a reward fund to which local contributions were offered, and that Faircloth was secreted away while awaiting the trial. The trial court, after a hearing, denied the motion for change of venue. We reiterate here that the crime was committed on Friday, May 25, 1979, and the body was found on Tuesday, May 29, 1979, while defendants Kesler and Crumpler were not arrested until January, 1981. The trial was held in April 1981. Much of the newspaper publicity, the offer of a reward and widespread interviewing of witnesses thus occurred 2 years before the trial. We find no abuse of discretion in denying defendant Kesler's motion for change of venue. Potts v. State, supra. 8. Defendant Kesler next urges that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the voir dire questions of prospective jurors. We find no abuse of discretion. See Lamb v. State, 241 Ga. 10 (1) (243 SE2d 59) (1978). 9. There is no merit to defendant Kesler's remaining enumerations of error. The evidence objected to was relevant to the state's case on the issue of motive (see division 2) and was not inadmissible because it may have incidentally placed the defendant's character in issue.