State v. Thompson, 39238
| Decision Date | 13 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 39238,39238 |
| Citation | 266 Minn. 385,123 N.W.2d 378 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Tilmer Eugene THOMPSON, Relator. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Mandamus has been adopted by this court as a proper procedure to review a decision of the trial court denying a motion for a change of venue.
2. In reviewing an order of the trial court by mandamus, this court will consider only those matters presented to the trial court. This court sits in review and does not try the facts.
3. It is proper, and often preferable, to determine the place of trial prior to the actual trial of a case rather than afterwards.
4. Determination as to whether the place of trial should be changed in the interests of justice rests largely in the exercise of the trial court's discretion. When it appears likely that it is impossible to procure a fair trial before an impartial jury in the county in which the crime was committed, the venue ought to be changed to a county in which an impartial jury can be obtained.
5. An examination of the evidence submitted to the trial court in this case leads to the conclusion that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in Ramsey County and that the venue ought to be changed to a county in which it is more likely that a fair trial can be obtained.
6. Ordinarily a defendant in a motion for a change of venue may not select the county to which the venue should be changed, but that matter rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, defendant having shown a preference for Hennepin County, we are inclined to grant his request rather than to send the case back to the trial court for a determination of the county to which the venue ought to be changed.
Wm. B. Randall, County Attorney, St. Paul, for respondent.
Kelly, Segell & Fallon, by Hyam Segell and William S. Fallon, St. Paul, for relator.
This is an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the District Court of Ramsey County to transfer the venue of the above action from Ramsey County to Hennepin County.
It would be undesirable at this time to discuss the facts of the case in detail. It is enough to say that defendant, a prominent citizen of St. Paul, has been indicted by the grand jury of first-degree murder, it being alleged that he procured another to murder his wife.
At the outset, some legal propositions that have been raised should be disposed of.
1. Mandamus has been adopted by this court as a proper procedure to review a decision of the trial court denying a motion for a change of venue. 1
2. In reviewing an order of the trial court by mandamus, this court will consider only those matters presented to the trial court. This court sits in review and does not try the facts. 2
3. We have long ago decided that it is proper, and often preferable, to determine the place of trial prior to the actual trial of the case rather than afterwards. 3
4. Ordinarily, in determining whether the place of trial should be changed in the interests of justice, the trial court has a wide discretion and we will not disturb the exercise of that discretion unless we are convinced that a fair trial cannot be had at the place where the case ordinarily would be tried. 4 When it appears likely that it is impossible to procure a fair trial before an impartial jury in the county in which the crime was committed, the venue ought to be changed to a county in which an impartial jury can be obtained. 5
In State ex rel. Warner v. District Court, 156 Minn. 394, 400, 194 N.W. 876, 878, we said:
'* * * It is not necessary that convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice Require the change. It is sufficient that they would be 'promoted."
In Berry v. North Pine Elec. Co-op., Inc., 235 Minn. 562, 569, 50 N.W.2d 117, 123, we said:
'Where there is reason to believe that it will be impossible to obtain a fair and impartial trial in the county selected because of local prejudices, feelings, and opinions, the ends of justice require that a change of venue be granted.'
The governing statute is Minn.St. 627.01, which reads:
'Every criminal cause shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, except as otherwise provided by law, unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court, by affidavit, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in such county, in which case the court before whom the same shall be pending, if the offense charged in the indictment is punishable with death or imprisonment in the state prison, may direct the person accused to be tried in some other county, in the same or any other judicial district in the state, where a fair and impartial trial can be had; but the party accused shall be entitled to one change of venue only.'
The claim here is that so much publicity has been given to this case that it is impossible to obtain an impartial jury in Ramsey County. Courts can do little to restrain news media from printing or broadcasting what they claim is news, but, when it appears that the public has been subjected to so much publicity about a case that it seems unlikely that a fair trial can be had in the locality in which the trial normally would be held, the court can and should see to it that the trial is transferred to another locality in which it is more probable that a fair trial can be had. Probably no case in the memory of anyone in this locality has aroused so much interest and so much discussion as this one. Over a period of several months hardly a day has elapsed when something has not been said or written in a news medium of one kind or another. It is important that the constitutional guaranty of the freedom of the press not be curtailed if we are to exist as a free people. It is equally important, however, that, when the unrestrained exercise of this right clashes with the right of an accused person to be tried by an impartial jury having no preconceived opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the rights of such accused person must be protected by transferring the case to a locality where the public may not have been influenced as much by the publicity that has been given the case.
In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 730, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1647, 6 L.Ed.2d 751, 760, this thought was expressed by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in a concurring opinion, where he said:
'* * * This Court has not yet decided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mastrian v. McManus
...The Thompson trial commenced on October 28, 1963, and ended on December 6, 1963. Mastrian was brought to trial on February 17, 1964. The Thompson case was clearly the more notorious of the two trials. It attracted media attention throughout much of 1963. See State v. Thompson, supra at 139 ......
-
State v. Thompson
...trial. On an application by defendant for mandamus, we required a change of venue from Ramsey to Hennepin County. State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385, 388, 123 N.W.2d 378, 381. In so doing, we '* * * Probably no case in the memory of anyone in this locality has aroused so much interest and so ......
-
U.S. v. Faul
...Olson v. N.D. Dist. Court, Richland County, Third Judicial Dist., 271 N.W.2d 574, 579-80 (N.D.1978); cf. State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385, 123 N.W.2d 378, 380 (1963) (per curiam) quoting State ex rel Warner v. Dist. Court, 156 Minn. 394, 194 N.W. 876, 878 (1923) (" '... (sic) It is not nece......
-
State v. Swain
...plea in June and several newspaper reports of the trial in November were entered in evidence. Defendant cites only State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385, 123 N.W.2d 378 (1963), and argues that the trial court should have granted the change of venue to promote the ends of justice. He further argu......