In Gonzalez v. State, 222 S.W.3d 446, 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), the appellant's evidence of pretrial publicity at the hearing on the motion to change venue included three newspaper articles, the surveillance video included in newscasts about the crime, the opinions of two witnesses on the amount of publicity generated by the case, and the effect of the pretrial publicity on the community. Id. at 450. In concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the court of criminal appeals discussed two areas where the appellant failed to provide evidence to prove the pretrial publicity was pervasive. Id. First, the appellant presented "no evidence of how many times the video was shown nor of how many people actually saw the broadcast." Id. Second, "no evidence was presented as to how many people saw the newspaper coverage of the case." Id. In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to change venue based upon evidence of pervasiveness elicited during the voir dire process, a trial court is within its discretion to believe jurors' assurances they have not seen any publicity on the case or that the publicity had not influenced them to the point that they could not deliver a fair verdict. See id. Further, case law reflects a trial court is within its discretion to deny a motion to change venue when approximately two-thirds of the venire panel has heard about a case. See id.