State v. Valenzuela, 40260
| Decision Date | 01 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 40260,40260 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Mauro Medina VALENZUELA, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Lyon, Beaulaurier & Aaron, W. L. Weigand, Jr., Yakima, for appellant.
Lincoln E. Shropshire, Pros. Atty., Yakima, Donald R. Shaw, Deputy Pros. Atty., for respondent.
*
Defendant, Mauro Medina Valenzuela, was charged by information filed on December 29, 1967 with two counts of unlawful sale of narcotics. He brings this appeal from the judgment and sentence based upon his jury conviction on both counts.
On January 5, 1968, prior to the trial, defendant moved for a change of venue from Yakima County alleging that the charges involved had been given such wide publicity through television broadcasting and newspaper articles in Yakima County and the surrounding area, in a manner so prejudicial to defendant's interests, that it was impossible for him to have a fair trial in that county by an impartial and unprejudiced jury. This motion was supported solely by affidavit of defendant's counsel alleging that the television coverage by Yakima television stations, KNDO and KIMA, and related newspaper coverage deprived defendant of his constitutional right to a speedy, fair and impartial trial by jury. No other affidavits or witnesses were produced to show such community prejudice which would have deprived defendant of his right to an impartial and unprejudiced jury trial.
After a hearing on the merits of the motion, the trial court entered a lengthy oral opinion in which it ruled that defendant's right to a trial by an impartial and unprejudiced jury would not be infringed upon by the news media's coverage. Thereafter, the court entered an order denying defendant's motion for a change of venue. Subsequently, on February 21, 1968, defendant was tried and convicted.
The record shows that the alleged prejudicial broadcast resulted from coverage by KNDO and KIMA of a marijuana raid conducted by Yakima County Sheriff's deputies early the morning of December 31, 1967. This raid was the culmination of about 6 months of investigation made by a plain clothes, undercover agent, Charles Addone, into illegal narcotic activities in the Yakima Valley.
Before the raid took place, Robert McMillan, Chief Criminal Deputy of the Yakima County Sheriff's Office, called the news media in Yakima and informed them of the upcoming operation. The newspapers and radio stations indicated they were not interested in attending. But, KIMA and KNDO not only accepted the invitation, but also asked if they could film the raid. McMillan approved the film coverage with the restriction that no filming could be conducted in the house which was the target of the sheriff's midnight operations. KNDO and KIMA news representatives then accompanied the sheriff's deputies in a patrol car to the scene. While the raid was in progess, they filmed the arrest, search and subsequent booking of a number of suspects, including the defendant.
On January 2, 1968, KNDO and KIMA ran the film strips with accompanying narration by the newscaster of what had taken place at the raid both on their evening and late evening newscasts. On KNDO, as the film was being shown, the newscaster noted in his narration of the events that the defendant (who was named) was one of those charged with the unlawful sale of marijuana. Only a fleeting glimpse of defendant could be identified in the film as the suspects passed in the camera's view. On KIMA, the newscaster narrated a similar account of the raid but included, along with the defendant's name, his age, the charge, his hometown, and the amount of bail set. This procedure was followed as to all those charged in connection with the raid. When the KIMA news film was shown in the courtroom, defendant's counsel noted that defendant's face was not shown and said:
Valenzuela, * * * was shown. His face was not shown. It was from his neck down. I recognized him from his coat is all, and the previous pictures.
Following its showing of the film and the narration, KIMA added the following editorial comment:
The films you have just seen of the marijuana raid and booking of suspects were edited carefully by the KIMA-TV News Department, to protect any innocent persons who may have been in camera range.
We have made sure that no person accused or booked is identified in the film. We have consulted with the Yakima Prosecutor's office, and with officials of the American Civil Liberties Union * * * in making the decision to edit the film.
The ACLU had issued a statement today, which said in part * * * quote * * * 'It would appear that the TV coverage of the raids might jeopardize the possibility of a fair trial for those arrested, and endanger the successful prosecution of any who might be quilty.' (sic)
We at KIMA agree with this statement. Yet we also maintain that the raids, accomplished with the use of undercover investigators, and conducted at night * * * are news * * * news to which the public is entitled.
We believe that in editing the raid films, as we have done, protects the rights of all concerned * * * including the public's right to know!
Both stations showed similar films and the coverage given to the event was about 2 or 2 1/2 minutes in length. No evidence was introduced into the record as to the prejudicial effect of any newspaper articles.
The main issue determinative of this appeal is: Was there a manifest abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying defendant's motion for a change of venue on the grounds that he could not obtain a fair and impartial trial by jury in Yakima County and the surrounding area? We think the answer must be in the negative.
The statutes governing the change of venue in criminal cases, relevant to this case, read as follows:
RCW 10.25.010 Criminal actions--Where commenced. Except as otherwise specially provided by statute, all criminal actions shall be commenced and tried in the county where the offense was committed.
RCW 10.25.070 Change of venue--Procedure. The defendant may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...157, 509 P.2d 742 (1973). Since 'actual prejudice' has not been shown, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Valenzuela, 75 Wash.2d 876, 454 P.2d 199 (1969). Smith next contends that the court erred in denying his challenge to the entire jury panel because of its lack of a ......
-
State v. Moxley
...v. Hawkins, 70 Wash.2d 697, 425 P.2d 390 (1967). See also State v. Stiltner, 4 Wash.App. 33, 479 P.2d 103 (1971); State v. Valenzuela, 75 Wash.2d 876, 454 P.2d 199 (1969). We find no abuse of Defendant contends he was deprived of a fair trial because of several incidents that occurred durin......
-
State v. Mahaffey
...carefully reviewed the record and are satisfied that counsel's first assignment of error is not well taken. As in State v. Valenzuela, 75 Wash.2d 876, 454 P.2d 199 (1969), the only basis upon which the trial court could conclude that Mahaffey could not receive a fair trial in King County is......
-
State v. Bonner
...of publicity; (8) the severity of the charge; and (9) the size of the area from which the venire is drawn. In State v. Valenzuela, 75 Wash.2d 876, 454 P.2d 199 (1969), the Supreme Court affirmed a denial for a change of venue where a county sheriff invited television stations to film a raid......