 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. House11/20/1997
e for determining public excitement or local prejudice in Taos County.
{92} The trial court applied the correct legal standard for evaluating the evidence regarding local prejudice and public excitement in Taos County and did not abuse its discretion by declining to conduct additional voir dire.
C. Evidence of Local Prejudice and Public Excitement
{93} It is for the trial court, as fact finder, to determine whether the appropriate standard of proof is met. See (quoting)). In reviewing such a determination, an appellate court's role is limited to deciding whether the trial court's factfinding is supported by substantial evidence, or is "`clearly against the logic of the facts and circumstances.'" ) (citation omitted). "The question is whether the trial court's result is supported by substantial evidence, not whether the trial court could have reached a different Conclusion." .
{94} It is not the role of an appellate court to reweigh this evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. See . "On appeal, all disputed facts are resolved in favor of the successful party, all reasonable inferences indulged in support of the verdict, all evidence and inferences to the contrary disregarded, and the evidence viewed in the aspect most favorable to the verdict." (quoting ). While matters not of record cannot be reviewed on appeal, see , "indings of fact adopted by the trial court are to be construed so as to uphold rather than defeat a judgment, and, if from the facts found, the other necessary facts to support the judgment may be reasonably inferred, the trial court's judgment will not be disturbed on appeal." .
{95} The majority departs from these firmly-rooted principles of appellate review in order to reach its Conclusion that the trial court engaged in "improper speculation" with a "fatal" lack of factual foundation. I respectfully disagree with this Conclusion and find no basis for the majority's departure. The record is replete with admissible evidence to support the trial court's detailed factual findings regarding local prejudice and public excitement in Taos County, and this evidence provides a basis for the trial court's ruling that is entirely independent of any speculation regarding jury deliberations or the constitutionally protected statements of counsel that were at issue in
{96} The trial court properly took judicial notice of the admissible material in the record. See ) ("A district court is required to take judicial notice of its prior proceedings in the same cause."); cf. (decided in 1996) (New Mexico Supreme Court may take judicial notice of record on file in court). The trial court was correct in considering its "own perception of the depth and extent of news stories that might influence a juror . . . ." Mu'min, 500 U.S. at 427. The evidence of which the trial court took judicial notice is clearly delineated in the record. See .
{97} The trial court correctly considered the expert opinion and public-opinion survey of Brian Sanderoff. The determination of whether to grant a change of venue "may be based upon such evidence as qualified public opinion surveys or opinion testimony offered by individuals . . . ." 1991 ABA Standards, (supra) 8- 3.3; see also (recognizing that ABA Standards may provide useful guidelines for New Mexico courts). The record indicates that Sanderoff was qualified and accepted as an expert in the following fields: public opinion polls, demographic analysis, redistricting, census data, and effects of media coverage.
{98} With this information before it, the trial court considered a number of relevant factors and weighed these factors in favor of a change of
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 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|