Wyo. R. Crim. P. 21 (2026)

Rule 21. Transfer from County for Trial. (a) Prejudice within county. — Upon timely motion of the defendant, the court shall transfer the proceeding as to that defendant to another county, but only if the court is satisfied that there exists within the county where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county. (b) Other cases. — For the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, the court upon consent of the parties may transfer the

55 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 21

proceeding as to that defendant or any one or more of the counts thereof to another county. (c) Proceedings on transfer. — When a transfer is ordered the clerk shall transmit to the clerk of the court to which the proceeding is transferred the court file in the proceeding or duplicates thereof and any bail taken, and the prosecution shall continue in that county.

Compare. — Rule 21, Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. Wyo. LEXIS 29 (Wyo. 1991), reh’g denied, 1991 Constitutional standard for fairness re- Wyo. LEXIS 45 (Wyo. Mar. 27, 1991). quires that defendant have panel of im- Standard of impartiality. — To hold that partial jurors. — Collins v. State, 589 P.2d the mere existence of any preconceived notion 1283, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 355 (Wyo. 1979). as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, Change of venue ordinarily within without more, is sufficient to rebut the pre- sound discretion of trial court. — Whether sumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality a change of venue should be granted is ordinar- would be to establish an impossible standard. It ily within the sound discretion of the trial is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his im- court. Moss v. State, 492 P.2d 1329, 1972 Wyo. pression or opinion and render a verdict based LEXIS 220 (Wyo. 1972). on the evidence presented in court. Collins v. It is ordinarily within the discretion of the State, 589 P.2d 1283, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 355 trial court to decide when a change should be (Wyo. 1979). granted. Mares v. State, 500 P.2d 530, 1972 Standard for demonstration of partial- Wyo. LEXIS 294 (Wyo. 1972). ity. — While a juror’s claim that he is impartial Allowance of a change of venue is ordinarily and can decide the case fairly does not finally within the sound discretion of the trial court. take away any further claim of the defendant Jackson v. State, 522 P.2d 1356, 1974 Wyo. that he did not have a fair and impartial jury, LEXIS 212 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1055, he must demonstrate the actual existence of an 95 S. Ct. 637, 42 L. Ed. 2d 652, 1974 U.S. opinion of guilt in the mind of the juror as will LEXIS 3665 (U.S. 1974). raise a presumption of partiality. There must Denial of venue change stands unless be a showing of corrupting inflammatory pub- clearly erroneous. — The trial judge’s deci- licity. Collins v. State, 589 P.2d 1283, 1979 Wyo. sion to deny a change of venue will stand unless LEXIS 355 (Wyo. 1979). it is clearly against the logic or reasonable Burden upon defendant. — Under this deduction to be reached on the evidence; stated rule, in order for a change of venue to be otherwise, the decision will stand unless it is granted, the burden is upon the defendant to clearly erroneous. Chavez v. State, 604 P.2d show prejudice so great or general as to prevent 1341, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 505 (Wyo. 1979), cert. his receiving a fair and impartial trial and the denied, 446 U.S. 984, 100 S. Ct. 2967, 64 L. Ed. decision is within the sound discretion of the 2d 841, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 1922 (U.S. 1980). trial judge. Collins v. State, 589 P.2d 1283, 1979 Prejudice must be such as to prevent Wyo. LEXIS 355 (Wyo. 1979). fair trial. — Prejudice against the defendant In order for a change of venue to be granted, must be shown which is so great or general as the burden is upon the defendant to show to prevent him from receiving a fair and impar- prejudice so great or general as to prevent his receiving a fair and impartial trial, and the tial trial. Mares v. State, 500 P.2d 530, 1972 decision is within the sound discretion of the Wyo. LEXIS 294 (Wyo. 1972); Jackson v. State, trial judge. Chavez v. State, 604 P.2d 1341, 522 P.2d 1356, 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 212 (Wyo.), 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 505 (Wyo. 1979), cert. denied, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1055, 95 S. Ct. 637, 42 L. 446 U.S. 984, 100 S. Ct. 2967, 64 L. Ed. 2d 841, Ed. 2d 652, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 3665 (U.S. 1974). 1980 U.S. LEXIS 1922 (U.S. 1980). It is not sufficient merely to show prejudice Affidavits of opinions or conclusions are against the accused; it must appear the preju- not in and of themselves sufficient to re- dice is so great or general as to prevent him quire a change of venue. Mares v. State, 500 from receiving a fair and impartial trial. Moss P.2d 530, 1972 Wyo. LEXIS 294 (Wyo. 1972). v. State, 492 P.2d 1329, 1972 Wyo. LEXIS 220 When affidavits of opinions or conclusions (Wyo. 1972). are alone relied on, they furnish no basis for The evidence to support a transfer of trial to granting a change of venue. Moss v. State, 492 another county must show prejudice so great P.2d 1329, 1972 Wyo. LEXIS 220 (Wyo. 1972). and general in the community that a fair and Affidavits submitted to the district court to impartial trial could not there be obtained. prove prejudice are not, in and of themselves, Valerio v. State, 542 P.2d 875, 1975 Wyo. LEXIS sufficient to require a change in venue. A defen- 176 (Wyo. 1975). dant must actually demonstrate existing preju- Venue changed where fair, impartial, dice in the minds of the jurors at the time of jury questioned. — If the right to a fair and voir dire. Wilcox v. State, 670 P.2d 1116, 1983 impartial jury is questioned, a motion for a Wyo. LEXIS 374 (Wyo. 1983). change of venue is the proper recourse under Extent of prejudice determined upon this rule. Johnson v. State, 806 P.2d 1282, 1991 voir dire. — A motion for a change of venue on

Rule 21 WYOMING COURT RULES 56

account of claimed prejudicial publicity cannot (Wyo. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 984, 100 S. be passed upon logically until the extent of the Ct. 2967, 64 L. Ed. 2d 841, 1980 U.S. LEXIS prejudice, if any, is determined upon voir dire 1922 (U.S. 1980). examination of the jurors. Moss v. State, 492 Record supportive of denial of venue P.2d 1329, 1972 Wyo. LEXIS 220 (Wyo. 1972). change. — Where the record does not reflect Interest and indignation of the people any news articles that are other than objective, are the natural result of shocking crimes and do nor any difficulty in selecting an impartial jury, not of themselves require a change of venue. and where the defendant has not exercised all Moss v. State, 492 P.2d 1329, 1972 Wyo. LEXIS of his peremptory challenges and has not ob- 220 (Wyo. 1972); Mares v. State, 500 P.2d 530, jected to the jury selection, there is nothing to 1972 Wyo. LEXIS 294 (Wyo. 1972). indicate an abuse of discretion by the trial Pretrial publicity is not of itself inher- judge in denying a motion for a change of ently prejudicial. — Weddle v. State, 621 P.2d venue. Weddle v. State, 621 P.2d 231, 1980 Wyo. 231, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 327 (Wyo. 1980). LEXIS 327 (Wyo. 1980). Two-pronged test determines whether In defendant’s felony murder case, change of change of venue should be granted be- venue was properly denied where sixty-five cause of publicity. — First, the nature and jurors were summoned for the trial, and of extent of the publicity must be considered; those, 12 had heard about the case, and each of second, the difficulty or ease in selecting a jury those jurors was closely examined; moreover, at must be considered, along with the amount of the close of voir dire, defendant passed the jury prejudice which actually appears during voir for cause and had no objections to the jury dire examination. Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202, selection process. Lemus v. State, 2007 WY 111, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 459 (Wyo. 1986). 162 P.3d 497, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 120 (Wyo. In determining whether prejudice ex- 2007). ists, consideration should be given, before jury The judge did not abuse his discretion in not selection, to the nature and extent of the pub- granting a change of venue, although 15 jurors licity. If not satisfied that there is a showing of were excused for cause, there being no indica- prejudice so great as to preclude a fair trial, the tion that the 15 reflected the opinions and court may deny the motion for change of venue attitudes of the other members of the jury panel or take it under advisement and then, in addi- or that the 15 influenced the remaining panel tion, also consider the difficulty or ease in members. Pote v. State, 695 P.2d 617, 1985 selecting a jury, and whether the prejudice Wyo. LEXIS 445 (Wyo. 1985). claimed actually appears during jury selection. Pretrial publicity did not require a change of Murray v. State, 671 P.2d 320, 1983 Wyo. venue where trial court found newspaper ar- LEXIS 378 (Wyo. 1983). ticles which had run prior to trial were not Juror exposure to publicity about a likely to have been read by a sufficient number criminal case is to be anticipated, and in jury pool to prevent impaneling an impartial jurors may even have formed an opinion as to jury. Punches v. State, 944 P.2d 1131, 1997 Wyo. the guilt of the accused, which by itself, is not a LEXIS 118 (Wyo. 1997). ground for requiring a change of venue. The Denial of defendant’s motion for a change of test is whether a juror can lay aside his opinion venue based on pretrial publicity was not an and render a verdict based on the evidence. abuse of discretion where, even though many Nixon v. State, 994 P.2d 324, 1999 Wyo. LEXIS prospective jurors heard of the case, there was 198 (Wyo. 1999). nothing to suggest prejudicial publicity and, Extensive news coverage does not auto- where, as part of his overall trial strategy, matically require change of venue. — Shaf- defendant’s counsel actually read portions of fer v. State, 640 P.2d 88, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 297 newspaper articles to the jury. Sides v. State, (Wyo. 1982). 963 P.2d 227, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 109 (Wyo. Extensive news coverage does not automati- 1998). cally require a change of venue, as pretrial Trial court properly denied defendant’s mo- publicity, per se, does not create prejudice suf- tion for change of venue due to pretrial public- ficient to prevent a fair trial. Wilcox v. State, ity about defendant’s crimes and a separate 670 P.2d 1116, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 374 (Wyo. investigation in which he was a murder sus- 1983). pect, where (1) although there were 12 articles The mere fact that potential jurors may have published about defendant, none were sensa- heard of a criminal incident or read about it in tional or inflammatory and the last was pub- news articles is not determinative of the issue lished 3 months before trial, (2) only five of 48 of prejudice. That is to be expected with a free prospective jurors expressed concern about press; and where the news articles are largely their ability to be impartial in light of the factual and not inflammatory, they cannot be pretrial publicity, (3) none of the five were considered prejudicial. Murray v. State, 671 seated on the jury, and (4) the record does not P.2d 320, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 378 (Wyo. 1983). indicate that it was difficult to seat an impar- Juror need not be isolated to be fair. — tial jury. Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, 67 P.3d One need not be isolated from all the informa- 1207, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 70 (Wyo. 2003). tion concerning the incident under consider- Although there was extensive media cover- ation to be a fair and impartial juror. Chavez v. age, change of venue was not warranted for State, 604 P.2d 1341, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 505 trial of a defendant accused of murdering a

57 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 21.1

victim who intended to testify against the de- dire so as to avoid denial of a fair trial to the fendant concerning sexual abuse offenses; the defendant. Armstrong v. State, 826 P.2d 1106, pretrial publicity was largely factual in nature 1992 Wyo. LEXIS 28 (Wyo. 1992). rather than inflammatory nor judgmental, and Ineffective assistance of counsel. — Dis- a complex jury selection process and extensive trict court did not err when it concluded defen- questioning of potential jurors resulted in the dant did not establish ineffective assistance of seating of an unbiased jury despite the adverse counsel at his resentencing because he received pretrial publicity. Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 103, a more favorable sentence than he originally 193 P.3d 228, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 108 (Wyo. had; defendant did not shown how the results of 2008). his sentencing would have been different if In defendant’s felony murder case, change of more information about his Security Threat venue was properly denied where sixty-five Group validation or his cooperation with the jurors were summoned for the trial, and of Department of Correction had been presented those, 12 had heard about the case, and each of to the sentencing court, and he was not preju- those jurors was closely examined; moreover, at diced by his absence in chambers. Sides v. the close of voir dire, defendant passed the jury State, 2021 WY 42, 483 P.3d 128, 2021 Wyo. for cause and had no objections to the jury LEXIS 49 (Wyo. 2021). selection process. Lemus v. State, 2007 WY 111, District court properly denied appellant’s 162 P.3d 497, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 120 (Wyo. Wyo. R. Crim. P. 21 motion to withdraw his 2007). guilty plea because appellant did not show a Venue change denied where careful voir conflict of interest that impacted counsel per- dire. — The court did not abuse its discretion formance and did not otherwise show deficient in denying a change of venue where the effects performance by his attorneys. Keller v. State, of inflammatory publicity on potential jurors 2024 WY 71, 551 P.3d 450, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 73 were mitigated by a carefully controlled voir (Wyo. 2024).