 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. House2/24/1999
conviction in part because the trial Judge based his denial of a venue change upon personal impressions similar to those expressed by the Judge in this case:
"The court doesn't feel that these men cannot get a fair trial in Lincoln County. On the other hand, he thinks they can get a fair trial as they can get in any county. The Court is somewhat familiar with the people in Lincoln County, having dealt with them six or seven years, and as far as the influence of the Nalda family, they have quite a bit of influence in one portion of the county, around Corona, but Capitan, Picacho, San Patricio, Green Tree, Ruidoso, there I would say that half of the people never heard of the Nalda family. I am going to overrule the motion."
Alaniz, 55 N.M. at 319, 232 P.2d at 986 (quoting trial record). We held that the trial Judge's opinion in Alaniz did not constitute evidence contradicting the material statements of fact in the defendant's motion for a change of venue and, absent evidence to the contrary, the venue change was mandatory. Id.
{69} In the case at hand, the Judge's observations do not substantively distinguish Taos County from any other community in New Mexico and do not constitute substantive reasons for a venue change. See Deats, 80 N.M. at 79, 451 P.2d at 983 (noting that our venue statutes function to prevent the trial court from overruling a venue "motion on the basis of its own knowledge of local conditions"). We agree with the suggestion of the majority below regarding this matter, and disagree with the Dissent's contrary Conclusion. We believe that the Judge's personal experiences in Taos were not appropriate evidence upon which to base a venue change. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, 39-40. But see Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 427 (indicating that a local Judge is in a better position than an appellate court to evaluate the effect of publicity because " he Judge of that court sits in the locale where the publicity is said to have had its effect and brings to his evaluation of any such claim his own perception of the depth and extent of news stories that might influence a juror"); House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, 96, 106 (approving Judge's reliance on his personal impressions). However, in the context of the other overwhelming evidence in favor of a venue change, this indiscretion is inconsequential.
4. Juror prejudice
{70} Though we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a presumption of prejudice that would preclude a fair trial in Taos County, it is notable that the trial court indicated that its decision was in part supported by what may arguably be described as actual prejudice. Judge Blackmer intimated that, after the second trial, it became apparent that some jurors had entered the proceeding with fixed opinions that prevented them from making a judgment exclusively on the evidence presented at trial.
" t the Jury's request at the end of the second trial in November 1994, Judge Blackhurst spoke privately with the Jury; he then returned to the Courtroom and advised all Counsel that some of the jurors apparently did not disclose their biases during jury selection. . . . As additional examples and considerations before this Court, post-trial interviews with jurors by the news media indicated hard feelings among the jurors (especially in the second trial), and apparent sympathy of some jurors that may have affected their deliberations and ensuing hung jury-and may have violated the Court's instruction that "Neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence your verdict.""
Venue Order, slip op. at 6 (Finding of Fact 10). As noted above, the trial court must "prevent even the probabili
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|