holding that in determining whether a defendant 26 cannot receive a fair trial in a particular county, the court must examine “(1) the nature and 27 || extent of the publicity; (2) the size of the [county’s] population; (3) the nature and gravity 28 || of the offense; (4) the status of the victim and of the accused; and (5) whether political 1 ||overtones are present.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that in determining whether a defendant 26 cannot receive a fair trial in a particular county, the court must examine “(1) the nature and 27 || extent of the publicity; (2) the size of the [county’s] population; (3) the nature and gravity 28 || of the offense; (4) the status of the victim and of the accused; and (5) whether political 1 ||overtones are present.”
- held: change of venue motion mistakenly denied; defendant was member of minority group and stranger to community; victim was white and from prominent family; and case had political overtones
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the judgment. Certain factors, including the nature and gravity of the offense, and the extensive local publicity devoted to the murder trial of defendant’s brother for the same offense, distinguish this case from Martinez v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 574 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 701 , 629 P.2d 502 ], in which I dissented. Unlike the situation in Martinez , a venue change seems appropriate here.