 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. House2/24/1999
t only the duty to insure a fair trial, but also significant power to take precautions when prejudice threatens to deny the defendant an impartial jury. See Martin v. Beto, 397 F.2d at 749. The court can fulfill this duty by such measures as beginning the trial after prejudicial publicity has dissipated, conducting rigorous voir dire directed at exposing prejudice in the community, and changing venue to a community that has little awareness of the case. See id. (listing steps court can take to insure fair trial); Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 424 (" he trial court retains great latitude in deciding what questions should be asked on voir dire."). House fails to show any abuse of discretion in the trial court's efforts to insure a fair trial.
VI. CONCLUSION
{112} Substantial evidence supports the reasonable probability that a fair trial could not be obtained in Taos County, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a venue transfer to Doña Ana County. Though House argued he was prejudiced by the move to a venue with few Native Americans, he failed to present evidence that the third jury was biased or that his third trial was unfair. Without supporting evidence, House's claims of prejudice must fail.
{113} We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court.
{114} IT IS SO ORDERED.
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
WE CONCUR:
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Chief Justice
JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice
PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice
VII. ENDNOTES
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.
|
|