Corona v. Superior Court

• Citation: 101 Cal.Rptr. 411,24 Cal.App.3d 872
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 13 April 1972
• Parties: Juan Vallejo CORONA, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SUTTER, Respondent; The PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 13266.

Page 411

101 Cal.Rptr. 411

24 Cal.App.3d 872

Juan Vallejo CORONA, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SUTTER, Respondent;

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 13266.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

April 13, 1972.

Hearing Denied June 7, 1972.

Richard E. Hawk, Concord, for petitioner.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye and Jack R. Winkler, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for Real Parties in Interest.

FRIEDMAN, Acting Presiding Justice.

An indictment filed in the Superior Court of Sutter County charges Juan Vallejo Corona with 25 murders. He pleaded not guilty and sought a change of venue, contending that pretrial publicity had prejudiced his right to a fair trial in Sutter County. The trial court denied the motion. He seeks a writ of mandate directing that court to order a change of venue of another county.

We turn initially to the standard governing our decision: When printed and broadcast pretrial publicity creates a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had, the trial court should continue the case until the threat abates or transfer it to another county. (Pen.Code, § 1033, as added by Stats.1971, ch. 1476; Maine v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 375, 383--384, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372.) 'A showing of actual prejudice shall not be required.' ¹ Following the trial court's refusal of a request for venue change, an appellate court may entertain the request by way of a mandate proceeding. In that proceeding the appellate court may not limit itself to an 'abuse of discretion' review; rather, it makes an independent review of the evidence and reaches a De novo decision. (Maine v. Superior Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d at pp. 379--382, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372.) When the issue is raised before trial, doubts should be resolved in favor of venue change. (Fain v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 46, 54, 84 Cal.Rptr. 135, 465 P.2d 23.)

The sequence of events commenced on May 19, 1971, when the Sutter County sheriff's office was notified of a shallow indentation in the soil of the Kagehiro ranch near Yuba City. Excavation at the site the next day revealed a grave containing a hacked and lacerated body. The body was that of a 40-year-old migratory farm worker. On Tuesday, May 25, deputies were called to inspect a depression in the soil of the Sullivan orchard, near the edge of the Feather River and about four miles north of Yuba City. Excavation revealed eight bodies. All the bodies bore marks of hacking and stabbing.

Early the following morning petitioner Juan Corona was arrested and charged with the slayings. Corona is a resident Mexican national who made his livelihood as a farm labor contractor. He lived with his wife and four children in Yuba City. That afternoon Corona was taken before a judge of the justice court. The public defender was appointed to represent him. The judge issued an order directing law enforcement personnel, court attaches and attorneys not to provide information other than that shown in public records and not to discuss evidentiary matters.

During that day and the next three days, additional digging revealed fourteen more bodies, most of them buried in the Sullivan ranch. The following week two more bodies were uncovered, bringing the total to 25. All the murdered men had been transient agricultural laborers. With one possible exception, all were Caucasian. All the bodies had been hacked and stabbed.

Sutter County's population is about 42,000. About a third of the population live in Yuba City, the county seat. Immediately across the Feather River from Yuba City is the city of Marysville, county seat of Yuba County. Yuba City and Marysville comprise a closely connected community. Three daily newspapers, the Marysville-Appeal-Democrat, the Sacramento Bee and the Sacramento Union have substantial readership in Sutter County. A weekly newspaper, the Yuba City Independent-Herald, is published and circulated in the area. Three Sacramento television stations and one Chico television station broadcast to approximately 12,500 homes in Sutter County. The record does not describe the radio news coverage.

Upon discovery of the eight bodies on May 25 a large corps of press and television reporters and cameramen converged upon Sutter County. Writers and photographers of the national wire services and major California newspapers, as well as local news reporters, were on the scene. Television coverage (the films of which are in evidence) was extensive and detailed. News photographs and television film portray the sheriff, the district attorney and defense counsel surrounded by swarms of newsmen and arsenals of tape recorders, microphones and cameras. For approximately two weeks after Corona's arrest, newspapers and broadcast material describing the grisly discoveries and Corona's possible connection was voluminous and detailed. It permeated the immediate locale, pervaded the state and extended across the nation. News accounts were supplemented by a multitude of 'local color' stories. Later steps in the judicial proceedings stimulated additional spurts of detailed, widespread publicity.

Corona was indicted on July 12. On July 22 the superior court issued an order directing law enforcement and court personnel and the attorneys to abstain from comment to the press. Ultimately counsel for Corona moved for a change of venue. At the hearing a number of witnesses testified and exhibits were introduced in evidence. We have before us a record which includes three volumes of transcribed oral testimony; twelve reels of television film containing composites of the daily news broadcasts; voluminous collections of clippings from the three daily newspapers and one weekly paper with widest readership in Sutter County; substantial files of clippings from all major and many smaller California newspapers, arranged alphabetically by county with separate folders for each paper. Also in evidence is the report of a public opinion survey conducted by a polling and marketing research firm employed by the defense; collateral documents designed to measure the accuracy of that firm's survey; the report of a court-directed re-survey of some of the persons polled by the firm; a public opinion survey conducted under the direction of the district attorney; finally, a number of affidavits of individuals commenting upon the state of public opinion in regard to the case.

The Attorney General suggests that all the collected material is relevant to the venue question. We agree. In Maine v. Superior Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d at pages 383--384, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372, the California Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Reardon Report (fn. 1, Ante), that the determination be based on 'such evidence as qualified public opinion surveys or opinion testimony offered by individuals, or on the court's own evaluation of the nature, frequency, and timing of the material involved.' The enumeration was not exclusive, and the court subsequently indicated the permissibility of oral testimony. (Frazier v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 287, 293, 95 Cal.Rptr. 798, 486 P.2d 694.) On occasion appellate De novo consideration may be handicapped when oral testimony is presented in transcribed form. The handicap is minimal where, as here, the witnesses' credibility is less important than the accuracy of their analysis.

In some highly publicized prosecutions a change of venue may be in order because pretrial publicity and accompanying conditions infect the community with hostility toward the suspect. This is not such a case. The news coverage was voluminous but not inflammatory. Generally, it portrayed Corona as a quiet, respectable family man and as a religious, hard-working individual. The record is empty of evidence of anti-Chicano prejudice in Sutter County. There is no evidence to justify the belief that Corona is the object of hatred or vengefulness in that county. The victims were not well-esteemed local people but relatively anonymous transients. (Cf., Maine v. Superior Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d 375, 66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372; Frazier v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.3d 287, 95 Cal.Rptr. 798, 486 P.2d 694; People v. Tidwell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 62, 89 Cal.Rptr. 44, 473 P.2d 748.)

A reasonable likelihood of unfairness may exist even though the news coverage was neither inflammatory nor productive of overt hostility. (People v. Tidwell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 70, 89 Cal.Rptr. 44, 473 P.2d 748.) When a spectacular crime has aroused community attention and a suspect has been arrested, the possibility of an unfair trial may originate in widespread publicity describing facts, statements and circumstances which tend to create a belief in his guilt.

Indispensable to any morally acceptable system of criminal justice is a verdict based upon evidence and argument received in open court, not from outside sources. ² When community attention is focused upon the suspect of a spectacular crime, the news media's dissemination of incriminatory circumstances sharply threatens the integrity of the coming trial. The prosecution may never offer the 'evidence' served up by the media. It may be inaccurate. Its inculpatory impact may diminish as new facts develop. It may be inadmissible at the trial as a matter of law. It may be hearsay. Its potentiality for prejudice may outweigh its tendency to prove guilt. ³ It may have come to light as the product of an unconstitutional search and seizure. If it is ultimately admitted at the trial, the possibility of prejudice still exists, for it had entered the minds of potential jurors without the accompaniment of cross-examination or rebuttal. ⁴

The goal of a fair trial in the locality of the crime is practicably unattainable when the jury panel has been bathed in streams of circumstantial incrimination flowing...