Lead Opinion
Plаintiff in error was convicted of murder in the second degree on trial under an indictment charging murder in the first degree.
It was аlleged and proved that the homicide was committed with a shotgun. The evidence showed that the gun was loaded with No. 4 shot. The accused shot four times* The shot which caused death penetrated the kidney of the deceasеd. The evidence showed that deceased was in a boat in the night time and the boat was moving away from the accused at the time the shots were fired. It is not necessary to discuss at length the evidence.
The plaintiff in error cоntends that the judgment should be reversed, first, because of the action of the court in denying a motion for change оf venue. A motion for change of venue was upon the ground that the accused feared he could not get а fair and impartial trial in the county where the crime was alleged to have been committed because оf .the adverse feeling existing in the county against him, because the deceased’s family and relatives exercised an undue *676 influence over the minds of the inhabitants of the county and because, as it was alleged, it was impracticable to obtain a qualified jury for the trial of the cause in that county.
Attached to the qiotion are copies of alleged newspaper articles. The fact that the newspaper articles were published was admitted. The State traversed the allegations of the motion. Several witnesses were introduced in support оf the motion. A deputy sheriff and the sheriff testified in behalf of the State. The evidence in this regard was sufficient to show that there was considerable feeling against the accused but we cannot say that the showing was sufficient to convince the court that a fair and impartial jury could not readily be obtained in the county. Nor can we say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue.
We have repeatedly held that an application for a change of venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its ruling refusing the chаnge will not be disturbed unless it appears, from the facts presented that the court acted unfairly and was guilty of palpable abuse of discretion. See Jeffcoat v. State,
- Plaintiff in error further contends that the judgment should be reversed because one Robert Nork, who qualified as a juror and became one of the jury trying the case, was in fаct disqualified because the said Nork had expressed an opinion prior to his selection as a juror as' to the guilt of the accused and in effect had stated that he should be electrocuted. One witness testified that Nork had so expressed himself. Nork testified that he had not so expressed himself. Nork testified that he had not so expressed himself and had entertained no such preconceived opinion.
■ The trial judge, therefore, had to determinе the merits of this contention, by deciding which of the persons testi *677 fying was speaking the truth. It is not made clearly to apрear that the determination of the trial judge in this regard •was erroneous.
It is next contended that the evidence is insufficient to ■sustain the verdict.
There is substantial evidence to show that the homicide was perpetrated by an aсt necessarily and essentially imminently dangerous. There was no justifiable cause for the ■assault. The assault was not сommitted in the heat of passion. It was not accidental, but was a reckless and wanton act evidencing a depraved mind regardless of human ■life, but was without premeditated design to effect the death of the person assaulted or any other particular person.
This was sufficient to warrant a conviction of murder in the second degrеe. See Gavin v. State,
No reversible error is disclosed by the record. The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring).—I have grave doubts as to whether the defendant in this case should be denied a new trial under all of the circumstances shown by the record. I think the court should have granted the motion for a change of venue. Whenever the State says that it has enough evidence to prove a man guilty beyond a reasonr able doubt it should not be afrаid to have that evidence submitted and passed upon by any jury anywhere in the State. The benefit of a fixed venue is рrimarily for the defendant, not the State. Only questions of convenience and expense can constitute a sоund reason for denying a change .of venue *678 insofar as the prosecution is concerned. In cases wherе a psychological atmosphere of hostility has been created against a defendant which is likely to preclude his getting a fair trial in a particular county, no speculation should be indulged in to the effect that upоn the trial it may be possible to protect the defendant from its effect. The venue should be changed when it is aрplied for in every case where there is a reasonable doubt raised as-to whether the defendant can be fairly tried in the county where the indictment was found. ■
• I concur in the result because I cannot say that tested by the striсt letter rather than the spirit, of the law as declared in our former decisions, the court below committed errоr that is reversible on the present record.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).—Not only was there a fairly strong showing made for a change of vеnue, but the evidence dobs' not, to my mind, sustain the change in respect to one element inherent therein, namely malice or depravity of mind. See Ramsey v. State,