to order a change of venue on its own motion if an impartial trial otherwise could not be had, and that neither the adoption of the state constitution nor the enactment of a change of venue statute had limited this common law power. The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of the court of appeals, but cautioned that trial courts must exercise this power only in exceptional cases. 497 P.2d at 233. See also Patterson v. Faircloth, 256 Ga. 489, 350 S.E.2d 243, 246 (1986) (acknowledging that in absence of controlling constitutional or statutory provisions, some courts recognize inherent authority in the trial court to change venue over defense objection when fair trial cannot be obtained in county where crime occurred); Heslop v. State, 202 Md. 123, 95 A.2d 880, 881 (1953) (<HOLDING>); Barry v. Truax, 13 N.D. 131, 99 N.W. 769, 776
recognizing that in the united states it has been held that a court has the inherent power to change venue without reliance on constitutional or statutory authority when necessary to assure a fair trial holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms recognizing that new mexico has adopted the common law unless otherwise abrogated by specific statutory provisions and that the power of a trial court to change venue on its own motion if necessary to assure the defendant a fair trial is part of that common law recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it holding that trial court has inherent power to allow in extraordinary and unusual cases a departure from statutory fee guidelines when necessary