Thus, the error was not “plain.” Accordingly, this issue is not one of fundamental error under the Perry standard that we can consider for the first time on appeal and we do not reach the merits. Venue Hadden also contends the district court erred in denying her two motions for change of venue, which resulted in a violation of her constitutional rights to a fair trial and to an impartial jury granted in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution.
Therefore, this Court employs an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to change the venue. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 278, 77 P.3d 956, 967 (2003); State v. In Hall, 111 Idaho 827, 727 P.2d 1255, the appellant was charged with first degree murder and aggravated battery after two men were shot dead and one was critically wounded following a fight outside a Rexburg bar.
Ramey testified Keppner was accompanied during the transaction by a woman and two teenage boys.
During the transaction, a brand inspector came to the ranch and indicated the brand on the cattle was Bilbao's.
Jones, 125 Idaho 477, 484, 873 P.2d 122, 129 (1994). Publicity by itself does not require a change of venue, Yager, 139 Idaho at 687, 85 P.3d at 663; State v. The shootings were “extensively publicized” by the local news media, but the district court denied Hall's motion for a change of venue.
When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (3) whether the lower court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600, 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989). Bitz, 93 Idaho 239, 243, 460 P.2d 374, 378 (1969), and error cannot be predicated on the mere existence of pretrial publicity concerning a criminal case. Rather, it is sufficient for the accused to show there was a reasonable likelihood prejudicial news coverage prevented a fair trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that, as it had noted, news stories about Enron did not “present the kind of vivid, unforgettable information the Court has recognized as particularly likely to produce prejudice” and Houston's size and diversity “diluted the media's impact.” Skilling ––– U. On appeal, we first noted Hall did not present any affidavits demonstrating community prejudice arising from media coverage of the case and he had, through counsel, engaged in extensive voir dire of the prospective jurors.