STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

State of West Virginia, FILED 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent April 13, 2015 

vs) No. 14-0538 (Berkeley County 12-F-132) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Jasmin Dawkins, 

Defendant Below, Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Jasmin Dawkins, by counsel Sherman Lambert Sr., appeals the Circuit Court of 

Berkeley County’s April 28, 2014, order sentencing her to concurrent terms of incarceration for 

one to five years for two counts of gross neglect creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury 

and one year for presenting false information regarding a child’s injuries. The State, by counsel 

Christopher Quasebarth, filed a response. On appeal, petitioner alleges that there was insufficient 

evidence to support her convictions. 

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 

21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

In May of 2012, a Berkeley County Grand Jury indicted petitioner on one count of death 

of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian; two counts of gross child neglect creating 

substantial risk of serious bodily injury; and one count of presentation of false information 

regarding a child’s injuries. The charges stemmed from petitioner’s involvement in the burning 

and subsequent death of her boyfriend’s three-year-old child.1 Following a five-day jury trial, 

petitioner was convicted of two counts of gross child neglect creating substantial risk of serious 

bodily injury and one count of presentation of false information regarding a child’s injuries. 

Petitioner was acquitted of one count of death of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian. 

Petitioner then filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing that there was 

insufficient evidence to support her convictions. Thereafter, the circuit court held a hearing and 

denied petitioner’s motions and sentenced petitioner to concurrent terms of incarceration of one to 

five years for each count of gross neglect creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury in 

violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8D-4(c) and one year for presenting false information 

regarding a child’s injuries in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8D-7. It is from this order that 

petitioner now appeals. 

1

The victim suffered from bleeding of his brain and multiple skull fractures. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On appeal, petitioner argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. 

We have previously held that “[t]he Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a 

motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Juntilla, 

227 W.Va. 492, 497, 711 S.E.2d 562, 567 (2011) (quoting State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 304, 

470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996)). As such, we hold that 

“[a] criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court must review all 

the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury 

might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The evidence need not be 

inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility determinations are for a jury and not 

an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record 

contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could 

find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are 

inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.” Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 

657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). 

Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Messer, 223 W.Va. 197, 672 S.E.2d 333 (2008). Upon our review, we find that 

the evidence below was sufficient to support petitioner’s convictions. In support of her 

assignment of error, petitioner erroneously asserts that there was insufficient evidence because 

Doctor Joseph Novello testified that she “did not possess the required intent to commit the 

[underlying] crimes because she suffered from battered woman’s syndrome.” However, this Court 

finds no merit to this argument because a review of the trial transcript reveals that Dr. Novello 

never testified that petitioner did not possess the required intent to commit the crimes because she 

suffered from battered woman’s syndrome. Furthermore, the overwhelming evidence admitted at 

trial was sufficient to support her convictions. The circuit court heard testimony that petitioner 

was aware that the victim was having trouble staying conscience, that the victim could not walk 

because his buttock was severely burned, exchanged text messages about physically beating the 

victim, and that she struck the victim in the face. Petitioner also testified that she was aware that 

the victim was severely burned and could not walk as a result of the burns. As such, the evidence 

was sufficient to support petitioner’s convictions. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: April 13, 2015 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

2