Court Opinion

ID: 9861298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:52:29.762945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:04.449583
License: Public Domain

RAWLINGS, Justice
(dissenting).
Being unable to agree with the reasoning employed and conclusion reached in Division I of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent.
The basic principle here involved is an accused’s right to a fair trial. See Spencer v. State of Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 563-564, 87 S.Ct. 648, 653, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967).
The majority would apparently require that a defendant show widespread identifiable prejudice in the community before trial court’s refusal to allow a change of venue could be termed an abuse of discretion. But see Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 541-545, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1632-1634, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965).
In keeping with Estes, this court has specifically held a showing of actual prejudice resulting from adverse publicity is not a prerequisite to a change of venue. See Pollard v. District Court of Woodbury County, 200 N.W.2d 519, 520 (Iowa 1972). We there adopted ABA Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press, § 3.2(c)’ (Approved Draft 1968), which says:
“A motion for change of venue or continuance shall be granted whenever it is determined that because of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, there is a reasonable likelihood that in the absence of such relief, a fair trial cannot be had. This determination may be based on such evidence as qualified public opinion surveys or opinion testimony offered by individuals, or on the court’s own evaluation of the nature, frequency, and timing of the material involved. A showing of actual prejudice shall not be required." (emphasis supplied).
The rationale underlying-this principle is self-evident; it is not usually possible for a defendant to prove jurors have read published reports or heard anything of a prejudicial nature. Often they will deny such knowledge upon being questioned or at most admit having read something about a given case, but assert such will not bear upon or influence their decision. See Commonwealth v. Stouffer, 225 Pa.Super. 30, 307 A.2d 415, 418 (1973) (Hoffman, J., dissenting).
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the impropriety of placing the burden upon a venue change movant to demonstrate actual prejudice. See Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U.S. at 542-543, 85 S.Ct. at 1632. For an informative discussion of the Supreme Court’s evolving concept of due process as here involved see United States ex rel. Doggett v. Yeager, 472 F.2d 229, 236-239 (3d Cir. 1973).
Admittedly, defendant in this case does not present a challenge foundationed on constitutional grounds. The issue must therefore be resolved upon the basis of our change of venue statutes, Code ch. 778. In light of Code § 793.18, however, the reasoning which underlies due process mandates should not be blithely ignored.
The key question is whether a reasonable likelihood exists that a fair trial cannot be had because potentially prejudicial material *227has been disseminated. See Pollard v. District Court of Woodbury County, 200 N.W.2d at 520; cf. Commonwealth v. Stouffer, 307 A.2d at 421-422. As the majority notes, we are required, on review, to make an independent evaluation of all the circumstances.
Defendant here appropriately moved for a change of venue supported by affidavits of three persons. His petition, in the statutorily prescribed form and in conformity with the statute, made out a prima facie case which was uncontroverted. Ordinarily this alone would suffice as a basis for granting the redress sought. See State v. Hephner, 161 N.W.2d 714, 716 (Iowa 1968). But see State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378, 383 (Iowa 1968), holding, in effect, the failure of either party to resist a venue change petition does not negate trial court’s discretion to determine under the record made, the necessity or advisability of a transfer for trial. Accord, State v. Dague, 206 N.W.2d 93, 94 (Iowa 1973).
The LeMars Sentinel, only daily in Plymouth County (population about 25,000), has a circulation of approximately 5000. The June 26, 1975 publication carried a front page article, under red ink headline, reporting six named people, including this defendant, had been arrested in LeMars the day before on drug charges. The headline boldly proclaimed: “Illegal drugs sold in parking lots: Prices for packets from $90 to $200.” There followed a facially authentic report setting forth the “specifics as to how the sale of narcotics come about in each minute detail”. Conspicuously absent was any attempt to tell the reader these “details” were mere allegations by claimed witnesses in support of the county attorney’s information. For example, in the third paragraph the writer states without qualification: “Affidavits contained in six of the eight cases in which drug arrests were made in LeMars Monday show drugs were sold to special agents for $840.”
Although the aforesaid information-minutes did not specifically relate to defendant’s case, neither was the identity thereof given. The editor allegedly deleted this recognition “in order not to damage the court cases”. Despite this asserted caution the names of all arrested were listed. Moreover, the Sentinel story contained this rousing statement:
“The seriousness of the drug abuse situation in LeMars cannot be disputed. Availability of narcotic drugs for indiscriminate use has been common knowledge for several years.
“Intervention by an Iowa narcotics agent has stopped this latest series of drug sales by LeMars and area youths and provided the public with facts and details of how drugs are sold.”
The majority concedes the foregoing left little doubt regarding the newspaper’s view as to the guilt of those named. Additionally, the above article was not confined to the editorial page nor labeled “commentary”. It was prominent front-page news. Cf. United States v. Coast of Maine Lobster Co., Inc., 538 F.2d 899, 902 (1st Cir. 1976).
Admittedly, an unsigned letter to the editor, a deferred sentence editorial and cartoon, intermittently carried in the Sentinel prior to trial, all as described in the majority opinion, were generalized criticisms of the courts and our criminal justice system. But the cumulative effect thereof cannot be brushed aside. See Dunahoo, “The Scope of Judicial Discretion in the Iowa Criminal Law Process”, 58 Iowa L.Rev. 1023, 1049 (1973).
Surely the aforesaid publications were more than ordinary reporting which always accompany any event such as this. Illustratively the Sentinel editor testified the paper had never before printed minute details of statements attached to a county attorney’s information. And the publisher admitted it was the first time an article headline on a criminal case had been emblazoned in red print. Then too, the material contained in publications subsequent to the above described June 26, 1975 issue were so closely related in both time and substance as to leave no doubt regarding their correlative' aim or purpose.
Briefly stated, the involved editions of the LeMars Daily Sentinel must be charac*228terized as nothing less than an indelibly imprinted community crusade predicated on a news media pretrial determination that all named, including this defendant, were guilty and must be subjected to penal servitude. Surely this jeopardized if not obliterated defendant’s right to a fair trial in Plymouth County.
The majority seemingly infers a change of venue can be properly denied even where, as here, there is local publication of potentially prejudicial material if the presiding judge merely assumes no reasonable likelihood exists an accused could not get a fair trial because of such publicity.
It still remains the above view places upon an accused a burden which cannot be met, i. e., establish actual prejudice. This, I submit, is a violation of fair trial rights. If there exists no reasonable likelihood the news coverage will serve to deny an accused a fair and impartial trial, then the burden to so show should be upon the State and such showing is here conspicuously absent.
In this case, for example, the State might have produced evidence disclosing any potential prejudice vanished with the passage of time. Or it could have requested a reported voir dire examination of the jury in order to, arguendo, support its view. See State v. Davis, 196 N.W.2d 885, 889 (Iowa 1972). But see ABA Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press, § 3.2(c)(d) and Commentary at 126-127 (Approved Draft 1968).
No such voir dire is instantly shown of record. On the other hand defendant, as aforesaid, submitted three affidavits supporting his prejudice contention. The State merely denied the allegation. Defendant lost. And, upon the basis of the conclusion here reached by the majority, the same result may be expected to hereafter obtain every time an accused unsuccessfully seeks a place of trial change because of potential community prejudice. This is to me inherently unjust.
' We need not, indeed cannot, proscribe the press from properly reporting on criminal events and trials. On the other hand this court has declared:
* * * It is fundamental, under our system of government, that one charged with the commission of a public offense is presumed to be innocent until the contrary appears. He is entitled to a fair and impartial trial before a jury of his peers, uninfluenced by any bias, prejudice, or preconceived notions of his guilt. To this end, the trial should be removed from these influences, so far as it lies within the power of the court to do so.’ ” State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815, 824 (Iowa 1971).
Good faith on the part of trial court and newspaper personnel is neither here in question nor relevant.
By reason of the above described article carried under a garish red headline, and ongoing pretrial provocative publicity this case was, in my view, so patently fraught with potential prejudice to the accused as to obviate any exercise of discretion by trial court. And if such discretionary right did exist, I respectfully submit it was abused. In either event a reversal is dictated.
I would attendantly remand for a new trial with instructions to prefatorily grant defendant’s requested change of venue.
MASON, REYNOLDSON and HARRIS, JJ., join in this dissent.