Court Opinion

ID: 9629176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:38:38.480805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:16.549075
License: Public Domain

OMAN, Judge (dissenting). I am unable to concur in the majority opinion, and particularly am I unable to agree with the disposition made of defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to order a change of venue. The applicable portions of our statutes relative to a change of venue provide: “§ 21-5-3, [N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967).] Change of venue in civil and criminal cases. — A. The venue in all civil and criminal cases shall be changed, upon motion, to some county free from exception: «* * * “(2) when the party moving for a change files in the case an affidavit of himself, his agent or attorney, that he believes he cannot obtain a fair trial in the county in which the case is pending because: (( í¡í * sjc “(b) the inhabitants of the county are prejudiced against the party; or “(c) because of public excitement or local prejudice in the county in regard to the case or the questions involved therein, an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county to try the case; or “ * * * “B, Any party in any civil or criminal case at issue who desires a change of venite from the county in which the case is pending, and who objects to a change of venue to any other county within the same judicial district for any of the grounds stated in subsection A of this section shall move for a change of venue on or before the first day of any regular or special term of court. “§ 21-5-4, [N.M.S.A.1953]. Evidence in support of application — Findings—Decision. — Upon the filing of a motion for change of venue, the court may require evidence in support thereof, and upon hearing thereon shall make findings and either grant or overrule said motion.” Defendant filed a timely motion in affidavit form whereby he recited his belief that he was unable to obtain a fair trial in any of the three counties in the second judicial district because of the reasons recited in § 21-5-3, subd. A (2) (b) & (c), N.M.S.A.1953 above quoted. This motion and several other motions concerning him and the other defendants came on for hearing immediately preceding the trial. The State filed no response to defendant’s motion for change of venue and in no way controverted the allegations of the motion by any pleading, although it did file affirmative responses for the purposes of controverting the allegations of other motions filed by the defendants, and these other motions and the responses thereto were heard on the same day the defendant Deats adduced evidence on his motion for change of venue. Although the record does not reflect any requirement by the court that evidence be adduced in support of the motion for change of venue, defendant had caused witnesses from the newspaper and television media to be subpoenaed. As stated in the majority opinion, after some of the motions had been heard, the court inquired if there were any other motions to be presented. Defendant’s counsel advised the court that there was a motion to abate and a motion for a change of venue, and that in order to free the witnesses, who had been subpoenaed in support of the motion for change of venue, he wished to put them on the stand before proceeding with the motion to abate. The court then announced: “All right, we will take that motion next. Call your witnesses.” As of this time the State had made no response to the motion, and defendant was unable to know what evidence, if any, the State might offer to controvert any of the allegations of the motion. Under these circumstances, I am unable to agree that because the court said, “Call your witnesses,” and the defendant then offered the testimony of his witnesses and a number of exhibits, consisting of newspaper articles, cartoons and editorials, all of which were received into evidence, and which tended to support defendant’s verified motion, that the court was proceeding under § 21-5-4, N.M.S.A.1953, above quoted, or that the court could properly thereby completely disregard the uncontroverted allegations of the verified motion. The State offered no evidence. It is frankly admitted by the State, and I agree, that nothing in the evidence offered by defendant in any way controverted the contentions or claims made by defendant in his motion. As I read the evidence which was adduced by defendant, it cannot possibly be construed as a rebuttal of his claim of prejudice on the part of the inhabitants of the counties from which he sought a change of venue. His claim in this regard was clearly and obviously asserted pursuant to the express provisions of § 21-5-3, subd. A(2) (b), N.M.S.A.1953, above quoted. It appears the trial court denied the motion on the ground that the evidence offered by defendant failed to persuade the court that defendant could not get a fair and impartial trial in Bernalillo County. The fact that the allegations of defendant’s motion remained completely uncontroverted seems not to have been considered by the court. The court’s findings and conclusions made upon the evidence offered by defendant in support of his motion were as follows : “FINDINGS OF FACT “1. That KOAT-TV had scripts and pictures of the Defendant Deats on their television newscast on the following 'dates: June 24, 1965, February 8, 1966; March 10, 1966; March 11, 1966; October 12, 1966. “2. That these pictures and scripts all dealt with court appearances on other criminal charges against the Defendant Deats, except for the ones on October 12, 1966, which pertained to the Criminal actions filed against said Defendant in the case at bar. “3. That KOAT-TV has two television newscasts daily, at 6:00 P.M. and '10:00 P.M. and their estimated viewing audience is as follows: “(a) For the 6:00 P.M. newscast, State-wide — 99,000 homes; Albuquerque area, 51,000 homes; “(b) That their 10:00 P.M. newscast has an estimated listening audience as follows: Statewide — 80,000 homes Albuquerque area — 39,000 homes. “4. That KOB-TV, during the year 1966, made several newscasts during its regularly scheduled news programs regarding the Defendant Deats when the said Deats made criminal court appearanees 'on other charges, and that the viewing audience of KOB-TV during said times was, at 6:00 P.M., State-wide, 35.000 homes, and in the Albuquerque are[a]s, 11,600 homes. With regard to the 10:00 P.M. newscast, the average listening audience is between 40,000 and 45.000 homes on the State-wide basis, and 15.000 homes in the Albuquerque area. “5. That the Albuquerque Journal and Albuquerque Tribune had a total of 54 stories written on the Defendant Donald Deats’ alleged criminal activities. Those involving Deats alone totaled 31 stories, additional stories involving Deats in which his name was printed total 10 clippings; Defendant Deats[’] personal file on clippings pertaining exclusively to him totaled 13 clippings, and articles on the cáse at bar on Defendant Deats totaled 4 stories, for a total of 58 separate stories on the Defendant Donald Deats. “6. That the circulation for the Albuquerque Journal and Albuquerque Tribune totals 62,000 per day for the Journal and 32,000 per day for the Tribune. “7. That of the above totals, the Journal has a circulation of 42,000 papers per day in the Counties of Bernalillo, Sandoval and Valencia. “8. That editorials have been printed in the Albuquerque Journal and Tribune since January 1, 1967, indicating the increase of crime in the City of Albuquerque and County [of] Bernalillo, and the appointment of a Crime Commission by both the City and County Commissions, for the purpose of relieving alleged difficulty of police work, because of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. “9. On February 8, 1967, a cartoon appeared in the Albuquerque Journal depicting a burglar by a cash register with a policeman standing next to him with a caption showing obvious disregard and disrespect for recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to confessions of accused criminals. “10. The television news casts and newspaper articles referred to above were so remote in time that there is no sufficient showing that they were prejudicial to the Defendant Deats, or that •they would have any effect upon the Defendant receiving a fair and impartial trial in Bernalillo County. “CONCLUSIONS OF LAW “The Court Concludes: “1. That'the newspaper and television coverage demonstrated by the evidence of the Defendant in support of his Motion for Change of Venue does not establish local prejudice or public excitement that would be sufficient grounds for a Change of Venue in this case. “2. The Defendant[’]s Motion for Change of Venue from the Second Judicial District, being Bernalillo, Valencia and Sandoval Counties is hereby denied.” The first nine findings are identical with requests submitted by defendant. Defendant’s requested Finding No. 10 and his requested conclusions were denied, and the court substituted therefor the court’s Finding No. 10 and conclusions just quoted. The State made no requests for findings or conclusions, and, as already noted, offered nothing by way of pleading or evidence to controvert the claims made in the motion. Although some minor changes have been made in the language and the form of organization of our statute, and it now embraces, not only the matter of changes of venue from one county to another county in the same judicial district, but also changes to a county in another district, the provisions of § 21-5-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967), above quoted, insofar as our present problem is concerned, are the same in meaning as those involved in our prior statute and applied in Schultz v. Young, 37 N.M. 427, 24 P.2d 276 (1933) and State v. Alaniz, 55 N.M. 312, 232 P.2d 982 (1951). In Schultz v. Young, supra, it was held that a moving and petitioning affidavit is sufficient if stated in the language of the statute. As above indicated, the defendant’s motion in the present case was substantially in the language of the statute. In State v. Alaniz, supra, the defendant filed a motion supported by affidavit, which complied with the statutory requirements. The State failed to controvert the charges in the motion by pleading or evidence. In reversing the denial of the motion, the Supreme Court of New Mexico had the following to say: “ * * * The State did not controvert the charges in this motion by any positive pleading whatsoever, nor did it offer any testimony to the contrary. Consequently the allegations of the motion and accompanying affidavit must be accepted as true. * * * ” “Where the defendant files a proper motion for a change of venue, which is duly supported, showing that the state of feeling in a county is such that he cannot obtain a fair trial, and those charges are not controverted, the defendant is entitled to a change of venue and the trial court has no discretion except to sustain his motion for it. Schultz v. Young, 37 N.M. 427, 24 P.2d 276. So, the defendant in this case was put upon his trial in contravention of his constitutional guaranties and of the statutes enacted for his protection. This the court below should not have permitted, and this court should not now permit the conviction to stand.” See also Yancey v. State, 98 Ga.App. 797, 107 S.E.2d 265 (1959); Brunner v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.2d 382 (Ky.1965); Manning v. Commonwealth, 346 S.W.2d 755 (Ky.1961); McGee v. State, 200 Miss. 350, 26 So.2d 680 (1946); State v. Shawan, 77 N.M. 354, 423 P.2d 39 (1967); State v. Childers, 78 N.M. 355, 431 P.2d 497 (Ct.App.1967). In my opinion the application of the above quoted statements of the law by our Supreme Court from State v. Alaniz, supra, to the facts in the present case, compels reversal of the judgment of conviction. I see no reason or logic in depriving defendant of his right to a change of venue, which he has established by uncontroverted claims asserted in a motion complying with statutory requirements, merely because the evidence which he offers in support of his right is not in itself sufficient to convince the trial court that he cannot obtain a fair trial in the county or district in which the case is pending. The motion still stands uncontroverted. As ■ stated in the Alaniz case, when the State does not controvert the charges in the motion by any positive pleading, and offers no testimony to ■ the contrary, the allegations of the motion must be accepted as true. I do not mean to suggest that the result I reach would be the same: (1) if the State had controverted the claims of defendant’s motion, (2) if the evidence offered by the defendant himself had been directed toward every essential allegation of the motion and admittedly constituted the only basis upon which the allegations of the motion were predicated, or (3) if this evidence had beeii so contradictory as to raise a question of fact concerning the correctness of his claims. I say only that the defendant, by offering some evidence, which in no way contradicted his claims; did not forfeit his right to a change of venue which he acquired by the filing of liis motion in statutory form and by failure of the State, either by pleading or evidence, to controvert the claims or contentions asserted in the motion. I would reverse and remand the cause for further proceedings. The majority having taken an opposite position, I dissent.