People v Christopher Porco

People v Porco 2006 NY Slip Op 04864 [30 AD3d 543] Decided on June 13, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 13, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
2006-05508 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

[*1]The People, etc., plaintiff,

v

Christopher Porco, defendant. (Ind. No. DA848/05)




Kindlon and Shanks, P.C., Albany, N.Y. (Terence L. Kindlon of
counsel), for defendant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany, N.Y. (Michael P.
McDermott of counsel), for plaintiff.

Motion by the defendant for a change of venue of the trial of Albany County Indictment No. DA848/05 from the County Court, Albany County, to another venue.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted and the venue of the trial of Albany County Indictment No. DA848/05 is transferred from the County Court, Albany County, to the County Court, Orange County.

It is unusual to grant a change of venue before voir dire, because the "voir dire is generally the most effective means for determining whether a fair and impartial jury can be impaneled. Nevertheless, it may not always successfully root out prejudice and therefore does not always guarantee the right to a fair trial." (People v Boudin, 90 AD2d 253, 256; see Groppi v Wisconsin, 400 US 505, 510; see also People v Boss, 261 AD2d 1, 6-7). Where, as here, there has been "intensive, localized, continuing and prejudicial publicity surrounding [the defendant's] prosecution" (People v Boudin, supra at 258), a change of venue may be appropriate before voir dire.

Under the highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case, including the identity of the victims, the nature of the crime, and the intense, localized, and prejudicial pretrial publicity, we conclude that a change of venue of the trial from the County Court, Albany County, to the County [*2]Court, Orange County, is appropriate (see People v Boudin, supra; People v Pratt, 27 AD2d 199; People v Luedecke, 22 AD2d 636).
FLORIO, J.P., MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court