Opinion ID: 1176325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of the Motion for Change of Venue

Text: (12a) Defendant next argues that the trial court committed reversible error in the denial of his pretrial motion for change of venue. The motion was heard on April 6, 1981. Jury selection commenced on April 22, 1981. The motion was supported by numerous exhibits, including copies of newspaper stories about the offenses, a videotape of a television news broadcast, scripts from such broadcasts, evidence of newspaper circulation and television viewer figures, as well as testimonial evidence of a telephone survey to determine public awareness of the crimes and opinion on guilt or innocence. [11] After weighing the nature and extent of the publicity, the gravity of the offenses charged, the size of the community, the prominence of the victims, and defendant's status as a resident of the conmunity, as well as the evidence that some persons in the community had an opinion, the court denied the motion for change of venue. The judge stated, however, that if during the jury selection process it appeared either on the court's own motion or on motion of counsel that because of the publicity defendant could not get a fair trial, one would be afforded. The motion was denied without prejudice to renewal if it appeared during the jury selection process that it did not appear that a fair trial would be possible in Sacramento County. Appellant did not renew his motion. (13) A change of venue must be granted if a defendant demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be held in the original county. (See People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d 144.) When extensive publicity forms the basis for a claim of potential prejudice, an appellate court reviewing the denial of a motion for change of venue must independently examine the record and determine whether in light of the gravity and nature of the crime, the extent and nature of the publicity, the size and nature of the community, the status of the victim and of the accused, it is reasonably likely that a fair trial cannot be had. ( Martinez v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 574, 578 [174 Cal. Rptr. 701, 629 P.2d 502].) In this context, the ability to assure the defendant a fair trial, and the impact of prejudicial publicity, are measured by whether the defendant has `a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.' Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S., at 722. Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. [¶] ... `It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.' Id., at 723. [¶] At the same time, the juror's assurances that he is equal to this task cannot be dispositive of the accused's rights, and it remains open to the defendant to demonstrate `the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality.' Ibid.  ( Murphy v. Florida (1975) 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 [44 L.Ed.2d 589, 594-595, 95 S.Ct. 2031].) When the defendant asserts error in the denial of a motion to change of venue on appeal, the reviewing court must also examine the record of the voir dire of the jury to determine if the potentially prejudicial publicity did, in fact, affect his ability to obtain an impartial jury. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d 144, 178; People v. Harris (1981) 28 Cal.3d 935, 949 [171 Cal. Rptr. 679, 623 P.2d 240].) (12b) Applying these rules we find no error in the denial of the motion for change of venue or in the failure to order a change at or during jury selection. The coverage of the murders by the local media was factual, not sensational. The newspapers reported not only defendant's identity as a suspect, but his surrender by his father, his denial of knowledge about the murders, and the arrest of Michael Hamilton who had fled to St. Paul. Although these news stories were front page news until August 1980 in the Sacramento Union, they were not given great prominence in the Sacramento Bee, and there was no evidence that the coverage continued into 1981, the year of jury selection and trial. Trial actually began nine months after the last news article appeared. Sacramento County is one of the 10 most populous counties in the state, and the area from which the jurors were called is metropolitan, not rural. Defendant and the victims were residents of the same area. He was not a stranger to the community. The victims, while known and loved in their circle of acquaintances, were not prominent in the community. [12] Defendant's evidence demonstrated that only half of the adult English speaking population had any recall of the crimes at the time of jury selection. The actual voir dire of the jury panel confirms the wisdom of the trial court's ruling. Defendant points to no aspect of the jury voir dire as reflecting a prejudicial impact flowing from the earlier publicity. Our review of that voir dire suggests that of the jurors on the panel who had any recollection, none remembered anything more than that he or she had read something about the case earlier. None had a present recall of any of the facts other than that the homicides had occurred and the location. Nothing in the record supports a conclusion that any juror who did serve, and who had heard or read something about the case, would not be able to set aside his impressions and base a verdict solely on the evidence presented in court. (See Irvin v. Dowd (1961) 366 U.S. 717, 722-723 [6 L.Ed.2d 751, 756, 81 S.Ct. 1639].) Each assured the court that he could do so, and the record supports the implicit conclusion of the trial judge that each could be fair. None was challenged for cause by the defense. Defendant has not established that he was denied a fair trial in Sacramento County by virtue of the impact of the pretrial publicity upon his ability to select a panel of impartial jurors.