16-6-101. Grounds for change of venue.
Statute text
(1) The place of trial may be changed:
(a) When a fair trial cannot take place in the county or district in which the trial is pending; or
(b) When a more expeditious trial may be had by a change in the place of trial from one county to another; or
(c) When the parties stipulate to a change in the place of trial to another county in the same judicial district or to a county in an adjoining judicial district.
History
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 218, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 39-6-101.
Annotations
Cross references: For the place of trials, see 18-1-202 and Crim. P. 18.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Annotator's note. Since 16-6-101 is similar to repealed laws antecedent to CSA, C. 170, 3, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.
The object of this section is to secure to a party charged with crime a fair and impartial trial by a jury in a county uninfluenced by local bias or prejudice. People ex rel. Burke v. District Court, 60 Colo. 1, 152 P. 149 (1915).
To support a request for a change of venue, a defendant must establish one of two circumstances. First the defendant can show that the pretrial publicity is so massive, pervasive, and prejudicial as to create a presumption that the defendant will be denied a fair trial. Alternatively, the defendant can demonstrate that any pretrial publicity will create actual prejudice and hostility in the jury panel. The defendant must show actual prejudice -- a nexus between pretrial publicity and a panel of partial jurors. People v. Hankins, 2014 COA 71, 361 P.3d 1033.
Pretrial publicity was extensive, but not so massive, pervasive, and prejudicial as to create a presumption that defendant was denied a fair trial. People v. Hankins, 2014 COA 71, 361 P.3d 1033.
Record did not show actual prejudice. Only one impaneled juror said he had formed an opinion, and he adamantly declared that he could set it aside. People v. Hankins, 2014 COA 71, 361 P.3d 1033.
The denial of a fair trial may be presumed when pretrial publicity is massive, pervasive, and prejudicial. People v. Simmons, 183 Colo. 253, 516 P.2d 117 (1973).
Prejudice must exist in all of several attached counties. Where several counties are attached for judicial purposes, a petition for change of venue, founded upon prejudice of the inhabitants must show that such prejudice exists in all of the counties so attached. Fitzgerald v. People, 1 Colo. 56 (1867).
Motion for change of venue properly denied. Motion for change of venue on ground that pretrial publicity made fair trial impossible was properly denied where the voir dire amply demonstrated the absence of prejudice and the ability of the jurors to set aside any opinions that they may have received from the news media. People v. Medina, 185 Colo. 101, 521 P.2d 1257 (1974).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the change of venue where the trial court noted that media coverage of the crime was balanced and was not sensational and that some newspaper articles expressed sympathy for the defendant. Further as a result of the court's voir dire examination of the prospective jurors concerning the effect of publicity, jurors who expressed knowledge of the case were either excused for cause or expressed an ability to put aside any opinions they had formed about the case. People v. Dore, 997 P.2d 1214 (Colo. App. 1999).
When juror's assurances of impartiality not conclusive. Where a defendant demonstrates the existence of a pattern of deep and bitter prejudice throughout the community where he is to be tried, a juror's assurance that he will be fair and impartial is not conclusive. People v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589 (Colo. 1981).