Joiner v. State
Decision Date | 29 December 1994 |
Docket Number | CR-93-1787 |
Citation | 651 So.2d 1155 |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Parties | 98 Ed. Law Rep. 1155 Mark Leslie JOINER v. STATE. |
Andrew W. Tampling, Jr., Prattville, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., Kim Oliver, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Mark Leslie Joiner, was convicted of arson in the second degree, a violation of § 13A-7-42, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. The state's evidence tended to show that the Marbury School in Autauga County, was completely destroyed by a fire set by the appellant and James Barrett. 1
The appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue. On October 5, 1993, the appellant filed a motion seeking a change of venue or a continuance of his November 29, 1993, trial date because of pretrial publicity. The court granted the continuance and reset the appellant's trial for the following term.
On March 2, 1994, the appellant filed another motion for a continuance based on pretrial publicity. To his motion, the appellant attached copies of two Prattville Progress newspaper articles concerning the burning of Marbury School. The appellant's name was not mentioned in either article. The court denied the appellant's motion for the second continuance on March 3, 1994, stating that it would "review the need to change venue if a fair jury [could not] be provided to the defendant."
After extensive voir dire, the court denied the appellant's motion for a change of venue, stating:
A trial court is in a better position than an appellate court to determine what effect, if any, pretrial publicity might have in a particular case. The trial court has the best opportunity to evaluate the effects of any pretrial publicity on the community as a whole and on the individual members of the jury venire. The trial court's ruling on a motion for a change of venue will be reversed only when there is a showing that the trial court has abused its discretion. Nelson v. State, 440 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).
Rule 10.1(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., provides that a "defendant shall be entitled to a change of the place of trial to the nearest county free from prejudice if a fair and impartial trial and unbiased verdict cannot be had for any reason." The burden of proof is on the defendant "to show to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that a fair and impartial trial and an unbiased verdict cannot be reasonably expected in the county in which the defendant is to be tried." Rule 10.1(b).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Samra v. State
...is a showing that the trial court has abused its discretion. Nelson v. State, 440 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).' "Joiner v. State, 651 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Ala.Cr.App.1994)." Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961, 977 (Ala. Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1124,......
-
Blackmon v. State
...is a showing that the trial court has abused its discretion. Nelson v. State, 440 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Cr.App.1983)." "`Joiner v. State, 651 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Ala.Cr.App.1994).' "Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961, 977 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998). `The mere fact that public......
-
Woodward v. State
...to receive a fair and impartial trial."Nelson v. State, 440 So. 2d 1130, 1132 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983), quoted in Joiner v. State, 651 So. 2d 1155, 1156 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). Woodward presented the trial court with numerous anonymous posts from online Internet sites. Although we agree with ......
-
Hall v. State
...is a showing that the trial court has abused its discretion. Nelson v. State, 440 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)." "`Joiner v. State, 651 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Ala.Cr.App.1994).' "Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961, 977 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1124......