Court Opinion

ID: 9649002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:40:29.846017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.032194
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Presiding Judge.
On rehearing appellant contends this court correctly recognized the “Estes-Sheppard-Rideau” test for prejudicial pretrial publicity (whether there is a reasonable likelihood that such pretrial publicity would prevent a fair trial) but applied the older and now obsolete test (whether prejudice found its way into the jury box). He asks a re-examination of the evidence offered in support of his motion for change of venue "to see if it indicates a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that pre-trial publicity prejudiced” his right to a fair trial.
This we have done.
There was a sharp conflict in the testimony offered at the hearing on appellant’s motion to change venue as to whether the pretrial publicity was likely to prejudice the right to a fair trial.
Some of the news media personnel called by the appellant did not believe such publicity would prevent the appellant from receiving a fair trial, although the lawyer-witnesses disagreed, including those who represented other defendants charged with narcotic violations who were not seeking a venue change themselves. The State's witnesses testified contrary to appellant’s contention.
Many of the news clippings appear to be dated January 17, 1970, immediately following appellant’s arrest. Not all of the stories concerned the appellant and those that did mention or refer to him were not exclusively devoted to his arrest and activities. The circulation figures of the newspaper or newspapers involved are not found in the record. While some of the references to the appellant in the news accounts attached are not flattering and certainly not desirable from the defense standpoint, the news accounts appear to be non-inflammatory and apparently published for the purpose of informing the public of current events. See Wallace v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 67.
And it is well established that newspaper publicity alone does not establish prejudice or require the change of venue. Wallace v. State, supra. There was testimony about television coverage concerning some of the undercover agent’s activities and appellant’s arrest, etc., but here again we find no figures as to the possible viewing audience at the time or the area covered by the television station or stations.
The indictment returned on January 22, 1970, alleged the offense charged was committed on December 23, 1969. The trial commenced on March 4, 1970.
We remain convinced, after a re-examination of all of the evidence, that the court did not err in denying the motion to change venue and in effect finding there was no reasonable likelihood that the pretrial publicity would prevent a fair trial.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.