 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washington v. Allyn3/7/1985
electing the jury, both peremptory and for cause; (7) the connection of government officials with the release of publicity; (8) the severity of the charge; and (9) the size of the area from which the venire is drawn.
State v. Jamison, 25 Wash. App. 68, 70, 604 P.2d 1017 (1979),
aff'd, 94 Wash. 2d 663, 619 P.2d 352 (1980); see also State v. Heath, 35 Wash. App. 269, 666 P.2d 922 (1983); State v. Cunningham, 27 Wash. App. 834, 836-37, 620 P.2d 535 (1980), review denied, 95 Wash. 2d 1010 (1981); State v. Warwick, 16 Wash. App. 205, 555 P.2d 1386 (1976). Our independent review of the record here leads us to conclude the court's discretion was not abused. See State v. Stiltner, 80 Wash. 2d 47, 55, 491 P.2d 1043 (1971); State v. Warwick, supra at 208.
The news articles were primarily factual. Although many of the articles appeared in the Wenatchee World which is well circulated in the area, only four of the articles in the record referred to Allyn's involvement in the instant case; the remainder were up to almost 3 years old. There was extensive voir dire of the prospective jurors, 52 were questioned, and Allyn exercised all of his peremptory challenges. Except for two prospective jurors who were excused because of the State's peremptory challenges, the court excused for cause those who had specific recollections concerning the prior crimes. The jurors finally selected either did not know Allyn or had only a vague recollection of seeing his name in the newspaper. Some thought the news articles pertained to his arrest where drugs were involved. Others thought he ran for public office. One thought his name was connected with a drunk driving charge. None had any strong recollection of what the articles were about.
Our review of the record convinces us the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse potential jurors for cause. Further, there is no evidence here that Allyn was in effect tried by the news media or community prejudice was so great as to give rise to a reasonable likelihood that the jurors were prejudiced against him. See State v. Stiltner, supra. Nor is there evidence publicity intensified after trial began or that any of the jurors read the newspaper or listened to the radio contrary to the court's admonishments. See State v. Heath, supra at 271. We, therefore, find no error.
Next, Allyn contends the court erred in refusing to grant a continuance or, pursuant to RCW 10.40.060, a 24-hour period to enter a new plea after the State was permitted to amend the information. The information was amended to change the date on which defendant was alleged to have possessed marijuana from December 28, 1982, to January 7, 1983. Allyn maintains the amendment was material because he had a valid defense that the State could not prove he possessed marijuana on the initial date. We disagree.
An information may be amended without rearraignment if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced or the amendment is one of form, not substance. CrR 2.1(d); State v. Hurd, 5 Wash. 2d 308, 312, 105 P.2d 59 (1940); State v. Pisauro, 14 Wash. App. 217, 218, 540 P.2d 447 (1975). It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to grant a continuance if the "principal element in the new charge is inherent in the previous
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|