Opinion ID: 2389751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cooper's motion for change of venue

Text: Cooper's motion for a change of venue was based on his assertion that the case had attracted substantial pretrial publicity in both the Bangor and Presque Isle areas making the selection of an impartial jury nearly impossible. As the State correctly points out, Cooper has failed to provide us with a transcript of the hearing on the motion for a change of venue. In addition, he failed to attach to his motion any exhibits in support of his position. In short, the record does not contain any examples of substantial pretrial publicity or considerable press coverage. We have consistently held that the appellant has the affirmative duty of supplying this court with an adequate record on which consideration can be given to the arguments advanced in support of the appeal. State v. Addington, 518 A.2d 449, 451 (Me.1986); State v. Meyer, 423 A.2d 955, 956 (Me.1980) (quoting Summit Realty, Inc. v. Gipe, 315 A.2d 428, 429 (Me. 1974)). In Addington, 518 A.2d at 451, we could not review the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for a change of venue because the defendant failed to include in the record the allegedly prejudicial news articles, the transcript of the motion hearing, and the transcript of the jury selection from which the publicity's impact might be gauged. Id. Similarly, in State v. Johnson, 479 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Me.1984), we concluded that [a]ny argument that defendant may have that the publicity in this case was so prejudicial as to render a fair trial within Cumberland County an impossibility is defeated by defendant's failure to make a record of any pretrial publicity. Id. Ordinarily the determination of venue is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be overturned absent a showing that either (1) the court abused that discretion, or (2) there exists facts demonstrating intensive and extensive pretrial publicity of an invidious nature tending to arouse general ill will and vindictiveness against the accused. Addington, 518 A.2d at 451 (citations omitted); State v. Coty, 229 A.2d 205, 210 (Me.1967). In the latter instance, a change of venue is mandated by the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. Addington, 518 A.2d at 451; 1 D. Cluchey & M. Seitzinger, Maine Criminal Practice, § 21.5, at V-17 (1992). However, in the present case, by failing to comply with his affirmative obligation to provide an adequate record, Cooper has failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation or abuse of the trial court's discretion in its ruling on his motion for change of venue from Penobscot County. See Addington, 518 A.2d at 451.