Opinion ID: 1626797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court erred in denying the motion for change of venue made on behalf of the defendant.

Text: ¶ 13. Davis argued that pre-trial publicity had prejudiced several of the jurors and thus the trial court was in error when it denied his motion for a change of venue. The State argued that Davis failed to follow the statutory requirements for a change of venue and alternatively, any jurors that had been prejudiced were excused and the two that were not excused were accepted by Davis. ¶ 14. The record reflects that after voir dire, Davis moved to quash the jury panel due to pre-trial publicity. Numerous prospective jurors had read an article about the case in the local newspaper the day before the trial was to commence. Many had read newspaper accounts or seen clips of the video on TV when the shooting and robbery occurred the previous year. However, each prospective juror who responded affirmatively about seeing or hearing about the case was individually voir dired, and the trial judge allowed defense counsel and prosecution alike to question each one as extensively as desired. The judge also asked the individual jurors if the publicity would influence their decision and admonished them to disregard anything they might remember from the publicity. The trial judge denied defense counsel's motion to quash, finding that the pre-trial publicity was not sufficiently prejudicial to require him to quash the entire panel and pointing out that Davis could strike for cause those who may have formed an opinion. Davis then moved for a change of venue under URCCC 6.06 which was also was denied. ¶ 15. A motion for a change of venue is not automatically granted in a capital case and is largely a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 65 (Miss.1998). A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on appeal on the ground that a change of venue was refused, unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion. Id. A motion for a change of venue must be in writing and supported by affidavits of two or more credible persons showing that the defendant cannot receive an impartial and fair trial in that particular county because of prejudgment of the case or grudge or ill will to the defendant in the mind of the public. Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 526 (Miss. 1996) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 99-15-35 (1994)). Had affidavits been submitted by Davis, there would be a rebuttable presumption that an impartial jury could not be impaneled and the prosecution would be charged with rebutting that presumption. Morgan v. State, 681 So.2d 82, 91 (Miss. 1996). ¶ 16. The State argued correctly that Davis did not follow the statutory guidelines in making a motion for a change of venue. Assuming arguendo that the motion for change of venue was proper, the trial court's ruling should still be affirmed. In White v. State, 495 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Miss.1986), there had been a series of stories in the local paper concerning a string of unsolved rapes. White, who was convicted of forcible rape, was named as a suspect in the articles. Id. at 1348. White's motion for a change of venue was denied. This Court affirmed. In White, only ten (10) potential jurors indicated that they had heard anything about this particular case and only three, who indicated that they had been aware of any media coverage, were returned on the final jury. Id. All prospective jurors said that they would not be affected by what they had been exposed to and would be able to render a fair and impartial verdict. Id. A fair trial is, after all, the reason we have our system of justice; it is a paramount distinction between free and totalitarian societies. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1209 (Miss.1985). It is fundamental and essential to our form of government that all persons charged with a crime have the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. White, 495 So.2d at 1348. Mississippi law on the subject of change of venue has been primarily summarized in the cases of Cabello v. State, 490 So.2d 852 (Miss.1986); Wiley v. State, 484 So.2d 339 (Miss.1986); Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203 (Miss.1985); Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195 (Miss.1985); and the cases incorporated therein. White, 495 So.2d at 1348. These cases focus on the presence of extraordinary and intensely prejudicial pretrial publicity. The accused has a right to a change of venue when it is doubtful that an impartial jury can be obtained. Id. [U]pon proper application, there arises a presumption that such sentiment exists; and, the State then bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. Id. While the presumption may be rebutted during voir dire, in some circumstances pretrial publicity can be so damaging and the presumption so great, that no voir dire can rebut it. Id. (citing Johnson, 476 So.2d at 1211). We have set forth certain elements which, when present would serve as an indicator to the trial court as to when the presumption is irrefutable. Id. These elements are: (1) Capital cases based on considerations of a heightened standard of review; (2) Crowds threatening violence towards the accused; (3) An inordinate amount of media coverage, particularly in cases of a) serious crimes against influential families; b) serious crimes against public officials; c) serial crimes; d) crimes committed by a black defendant upon a white victim; e) where there is an inexperienced trial counsel. Baldwin v. State, 732 So.2d 236, 241 (Miss. 1999). ¶ 17. Applying these elements to the instant case, it is clear that Davis cannot claim that the presumption of prejudice here is irrefutable. The publicity in question cannot be described as inordinate, especially when compared to White. Here, there was an article in the paper in September of 1996, and an article in the paper the day before trial as well as news reports on radio and television. In denying the motion to quash the venire, the trial judge stated that it's remarkable that most of the people had formed no such opinions and knew very little about the case, really, from a factual standpoint. And to the contrary, it seems that the great majority of the people on this panel would be fair and impartial, or stated that they could. ¶ 18. In the case sub judice, the article in the paper was not as damaging as the articles published in White, Johnson and Fisher. This Court has stated that when the news media have heavily reported a case, the lower courts should be prepared to change venue. Johnson, 476 So.2d at 1215. However, as in Gray, this case was not saturated with publicity as was the case in Fisher and Johnson. Gray v. State, 728 So.2d at 65. ( Gray had 11 articles; Fisher and Johnson each had over 60 articles). The venire was questioned as to their ability to make a decision based on the evidence, the law and if they had prejudged the case as to guilt or innocence. Individual voir dire was conducted with those potential jurors who had read the news articles. The record indicates that the impaneled jury members affirmatively stated that they could fairly and impartially serve as jurors. We have faith that trial judges are ever mindful of the fact that when faced with a case which has been heavily reported in the news media, our trial courts must be prepared to readily grant a change of venue. Johnson, 476 So.2d at 1214. Judicial efficiency and economy would be better served by a fair trial initially. Id. The fair way is the safe way, and the safe way is the best way in every criminal prosecution. Id. While there was some publicity in the case sub judice, there was not enough to prejudice the defendant such that he could not receive a fair trial. The trial judge took the necessary steps to insure that the defendant's right to a fair trial was preserved. There is nothing to indicate that the jurors were not fair and impartial. Where ... the evidence is conflicting on the question of whether or not the defendant could receive a fair and impartial trial, this Court will generally defer to the considered opinion of the trial judge. Burrell v. State, 613 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Miss.1993). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion on this issue.