STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

State of West Virginia, FILED 

Plaintiff Below, Respondent April 16, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs) No. 12-0400 (Berkeley County 11-F-54 & 11-M-4) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Ralph Mason Jr.,
 

Defendant Below, Petitioner
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner’s appeal, by counsel Matthew L. Harvey, arises from the Circuit Court of 

Berkeley County, wherein he was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty months in jail 

following his conviction, by jury, for one count of brandishing a deadly weapon, one count of 

assault of a government representative, and one count of obstructing a law enforcement officer. 

Petitioner was resentenced by order entered on February 23, 2012. The State, by counsel Cheryl 

K. Saville, has filed its response. 

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 is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

In October of 2011, petitioner was convicted by a jury of one count of brandishing a 

deadly weapon, one count of assault of a government representative, and one count of obstructing 

a law enforcement officer. Thereafter, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty 

months in jail, which was suspended in lieu of five years of probation. In February of 2012, 

petitioner was resentenced to allow him to file this appeal. 

On appeal, petitioner alleges that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for 

judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case-in-chief and at the conclusion of all the 

evidence, and in denying his motion for a new trial. In support, petitioner argues that the evidence 

below was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to establish multiple 

elements of the various crimes. Petitioner also argues that the circuit court erred in failing to 

instruct the jury as to the valid defense of resisting an unlawful arrest. In response, the State 

argues that there was an abundance of evidence introduced at trial to support the jury’s verdicts. 

According to the State, the evidence showed that petitioner used a chainsaw to breach the peace 

while threatening to kill a West Virginia State Trooper and his family. Further, other law 

enforcement officers testified to petitioner’s arrest, during which he committed the offense of 

1
­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

assault of a government representative by threatening to kill one officer and moving towards him 

aggressively. Lastly, the State argues that there was ample evidence in support of the obstruction 

charge related to petitioner’s refusal to comply with multiple directions from law enforcement 

officials. 

We have held 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. 5, State v. Broughton, 196 W.Va. 281, 470 S.E.2d 413 (1996). Upon our review, the Court 

finds that the evidence was sufficient to support petitioner’s conviction for the multiple crimes 

below. 

The evidence established that petitioner was revving a chainsaw and threatening to kill 

Mr. Gilmore and his child. This obviously constitutes a breach of the peace and the evidence is 

sufficient to support that element, petitioner’s acquittal for assault arising out of this same action 

notwithstanding. The fact that petitioner alleges that the act which formed the basis of the 

brandishing charge was “between petitioner and Matthew Gilmore” does not render his actions 

lawful. Further, the evidence established that law enforcement arrived on the scene with lights 

and sirens engaged and the officers entered the woods in pursuit of petitioner in full uniform. As 

such, the Court finds that the jury had sufficient evidence upon which to find that petitioner knew 

that the individuals were government representatives. Additionally, petitioner has misstated the 

necessary elements for the crime of obstructing. However, the evidence established that petitioner 

forcibly refused to comply with multiple directions from law enforcement during their attempts to 

arrest petitioner. For these reasons, the evidence below was sufficient to support petitioner’s 

convictions. 

In regard to petitioner’s assignment of error regarding the circuit court’s refusal to give a 

requested jury instruction, we have previously held that, 

“[a]s a general rule, the refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reviewed for 

an abuse of discretion. By contrast, the question of whether a jury was properly 

instructed is a question of law, and the review is de novo.” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. 

Hinkle, 200 W.Va. 280, 489 S.E.2d 257 (1996). 

2
­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Syl. Pt. 11, Bailey v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 206 W.Va. 654, 527 S.E.2d 516 (1999). Based 

upon the evidence at trial, it is clear that petitioner was being lawfully arrested. As such, the 

circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying him an instruction as to the defense of 

resisting an unlawful arrest. 

For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s sentencing order is hereby affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: April 16, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3
­