STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

State of West Virginia, FILED 

Respondent November 17, 2016 

released at 3:00 p.m. vs) No. 15-0087 (Kanawha County 13-F-707) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Tyquan Livermon, 

Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Tyquan Livermon, by counsel C. Joan Parker, appeals the order of the 

Circuit Court of Kanawha County, entered on May 19, 2014, convicting him of one count 

of first degree robbery and five counts of wanton endangerment. The State of West 

Virginia, by counsel Benjamin F. Yancey, III, filed a response arguing that the circuit 

court’s order should be affirmed. 

Upon consideration of the standard of review, the parties’ briefs, the record 

presented, and the oral arguments, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no 

prejudicial error in this case. Thus, we find that a memorandum decision is the 

appropriate disposition for this case under Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background 

On the evening of August 8, 2013, Melissa Coffman was at home in her apartment 

in the Southmoor apartment complex with Jason Rencher and her two young children. At 

about 9:30 p.m., while the children slept upstairs, a man with a rifle entered the home and 

ordered Ms. Coffman and Mr. Rencher to the floor, firing a shot from the rifle into the 

wall. The gunman threatened Ms. Coffman and Mr. Rencher, demanded money, and took 

$215 from Ms. Coffman’s purse and marijuana from Ms. Coffman and Mr. Rencher. The 

gunman then left the apartment. Ms. Coffman and Mr. Rencher observed that the gunman 

was wearing a mask and gray sweatpants and that he carried a backpack. 

Ms. Coffman’s neighbor heard the gunshot and shouting and alerted law 

enforcement. Officers responded quickly and were outside of Ms. Coffman’s apartment 

when the gunman fled on foot. The officers gave chase, ordering the man to stop. The 

gunman fired on the officers, forcing the officers to take cover. After the gunman 

escaped, the officers set up a perimeter around Ms. Coffman’s apartment in which they 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conducted a sweep for evidence connected to the robbery. During the investigation, the 

officers found, among other things, rifle shell casings and a backpack containing a mobile 

phone. On the phone, the officers discovered a video depicting another resident of the 

Southmoor apartment complex, Shabazz Washington. 

Shabazz Washington lived with his sister, Ashley Washington Lowry, and a 

family friend, Dana Griffith. The police obtained a warrant to search their home, 

executing the warrant at approximately 6:30 p.m. on August 9, 2013. In the home, the 

officers discovered an SKS rifle in one of the unit’s closets. The rifle was compatible 

with the shell casings discovered near Ms. Coffman’s apartment. The officers also 

observed Petitioner Tyquan Livermon, a guest in the home, in possession of marijuana. 

The officers placed him under arrest for possession of marijuana and transported him to 

the police station at about 8:00 p.m. During the investigation, the officers received 

information from multiple witnesses that Mr. Livermon was involved in the robbery of 

Ms. Coffman’s home and that the SKS rifle belonged to him. 

Beginning at 9:19 p.m., Detective A.R. Gordon of the South Charleston Police 

Department interrogated Mr. Livermon. The interrogation lasted for about an hour and 10 

minutes. Before beginning the interrogation, Detective Gordon spent about six minutes 

advising Mr. Livermon of his Miranda1 rights, and Mr. Livermon signed a waiver-ofrights form. The interrogation was audio recorded and focused primarily on the events 

surrounding the robbery of Ms. Coffman’s home on August 8, 2013, not the marijuana 

possession. When Detective Gordon was asked during the April 17, 2014, suppression 

hearing why Mr. Livermon had not been charged with robbery or wanton endangerment, 

Detective Gordon explained, “Based on the statement that I had already obtained, I 

wanted to verify those statements . . . .” Mr. Livermon denied ownership of the SKS rifle 

and denied involvement in the robbery. Following the interrogation, Mr. Livermon was 

placed in a holding cell. The record reflects that a magistrate was on duty when Mr. 

Livermon was placed in the holding cell. 

At approximately 1:05 a.m., about two and a half hours after being placed in the 

holding cell, Detective Ben Paschal executed a warrant to search Mr. Livermon’s person 

for gunshot residue. He also conducted a second interrogation of Mr. Livermon. 

Detective Paschal began the second interrogation by reading Mr. Livermon his Miranda 

rights and having him sign a waiver-of-rights form. Again, this interview was recorded 

and focused primarily on the robbery on August 8, 2013. The interview lasted about an 

hour and twenty minutes. Near the end of the interrogation, Detective Paschal charged 

Mr. Livermon with robbery and wanton endangerment and walked him to the processing 

room. The transcript of the recorded interrogation ends as follows: 

1 The rights afforded a person in police custody by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 

436, 479 (1966), are discussed infra Part II.A. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unidentified: Let’s take a little walk back here. [To the processing 

room.] 

Q. [Detective Paschal] If you want to talk we will keep talking. 

(Inaudible) I still got that thing [the recording device] going, I don’t want 

you to (inaudible) 

. . . . 

Q. I’m going to turn this thing off. You don’t have anything you 

want to say anymore do you? 

A. [Petitioner] Oh yeah. 

Q. You got anything there. You got a video now. Is there anything 

else that you want to tell me right now that’s (inaudible) What do you want 

to tell me? 

A. Um--­

Q. This is my boss Chief Detective Graley anything you tell me I’m 

going to tell him. So if there’s something new you want to tell me now, tell 

me or I’ll just turn it off. Are we done? 

Unidentified: (inaudible) 

Q. I think we’re about done, he said he had something new to add 

but he’s not saying so I’m turning it off. Man if you have something new to 

say now let’s get it out let’s get it done. 

. . . . 

A. (inaudible) I’m not going to sit here and say they did, he did, she 

did. 

Q. If somebody uses your gun and does something (inaudible) it is 

what it is. I think I’m going off record here unless you got something to tell 

me. Tell me about it now and we’ll talk about it. I know you keep looking 

at it because you don’t want to do it on record. Is that what you want me to 

do you want me to turn it off? 

A. I mean no, you probably, I mean yeah you can turn it off if you 

want to. 

Q. Are you going to tell me anything? Do we turn this off? 

A. Yeah. 

Detective Paschal claimed that after he turned off the recording device, Mr. Livermon 

told him that he—Mr. Livermon—had stolen the rifle from the father of a girl named 

Breanna (“the unrecorded statement”). Detective Paschal noted that when Mr. Livermon 

made this statement, they were standing in the processing room which had signs 

indicating that the area was subjected to video and audio recording. 

Mr. Livermon was indicted on October 24, 2013, on one count of first degree 

robbery, two counts of burglary, four counts of attempted murder, and five counts of 

wanton endangerment, all in connection with the events of August 8, 2013. Before trial, 

he filed a motion to suppress certain evidence, including the statements he made to police 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

after his arrest on grounds that his statements were taken in violation of Miranda and his 

prompt presentment right. After a pretrial hearing on the matter on April 17, 2014, the 

court denied the motion by an amended order entered on May 5, 2014. 

With regard to Mr. Livermon’s argument that his statements were taken in 

violation of Miranda, the circuit court determined that “[t]he defendant’s recorded 

statements are admissible at trial under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ as he freely, 

voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived his rights against self-incrimination in 

writing and on audio recordings.” The court also decided that “[t]he police were not 

required to re-inform the defendant of his Miranda rights when they decided to charge 

him with the robbery and wanton endangerment because he was already under arrest and 

in custody for possession of marijuana.” 

With regard to Mr. Livermon’s position that his prompt presentment right was 

violated, the circuit court made a finding that “[t]he detective’s delay in immediately 

presenting the defendant before a magistrate on the night of August 9 was primarily 

investigatory in nature, and not solely an attempt to obtain a confession.” The court 

concluded that “[t]he length of time the defendant was in custody before giving his 

statements does not offend the ‘prompt presentment’ rule under either Federal or State 

law. Any statement taken within six hours of arrest is considered not to violate the 

prompt presentment rule.” 

Mr. Livermon received a jury trial. During the trial, Mr. Washington testified that 

shortly before the robbery of Ms. Coffman’s home, he declined Mr. Livermon’s request 

to join him in a robbery. Ms. Lowry similarly testified that Mr. Livermon informed her of 

his intent to commit a robbery on the same day as the robbery. Mr. Washington, Ms. 

Lowry, and a friend of Mr. Washington all testified that after the robbery, Mr. Livermon 

returned to the Washington home claiming he had committed a robbery. Ms. Lowry 

further testified that the rifle recovered from the home belonged to Mr. Livermon and that 

she had advised him to “get it out of the house” because “it was hot.”2 Detective Paschal 

testified that during the second interrogation of Mr. Livermon, Mr. Livermon admitted 

that “he had stolen the gun,” referring to the SKS rifle found in the Washington home. 

On May 9, 2014, the jury trial culminated in a conviction on one count of first 

degree robbery and five counts of wanton endangerment. The circuit court entered a 

verdict order on May 19, 2014, remanding Mr. Livermon to the South Central Regional 

Jail until sentencing. On July 24, 2014, Mr. Livermon was sentenced to ten years for the 

first degree robbery conviction and a determinate term of five years for each count of 

wanton endangerment, with each of the sentences running consecutively. 

2 “Hot” is a slang word for “stolen.” See State v. Wallace, 118 W. Va. 127, 131, 

189 S.E.104, 106 (1936) (“[H]e told defendant that the ring was “ hot,” meaning that it 

was stolen property . . . .”). 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. Analysis 

Mr. Livermon appeals his conviction, arguing that the circuit court committed 

reversible error by failing to suppress the unrecorded statement he made to Detective 

Paschal—a statement he deems a confession. He asserts that the statement should have 

been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of Miranda and his prompt 

presentment right. We have held that when reviewing a circuit court’s decision on a 

motion to suppress, we will construe the facts in a light most favorable to the State, and 

we will review the circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error. See syl. pt. 1, State v. 

Lacy, 196 W. Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996) (“When reviewing a ruling on a motion to 

suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most favorable to the 

State, as it was the prevailing party below. Because of the highly fact-specific nature of a 

motion to suppress, particular deference is given to the findings of the circuit court 

because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to hear testimony on the 

issues. Therefore, the circuit court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error.”). 

A. Miranda 

Mr. Livermon contends that warnings he received before he gave the unrecorded 

statement did not comply with Miranda because he was not informed that he had the 

right to terminate the interrogation at any time. Miranda requires that for the State to use 

a statement acquired during custodial interrogation, “it [must] demonstrate[] the use of 

procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). The procedural safeguards envisioned by 

Miranda require that a person in custody 

be warned prior to any questioning [1] that he has the right to remain silent, 

[2] that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, [3] that 

he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and [4] that if he cannot 

afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if 

he so desires. 

Id.; accord syl. pt. 7, State v. Plantz, 155 W. Va. 24, 180 S.E.2d 614 (1971), overruled on 

other grounds by State ex rel. White v. Mohn, 168 W. Va. 211, 283 S.E.2d 914 (1981). 

The United States Supreme Court, in deciding Miranda, did not require that those in 

police custody be informed of the right to terminate interrogation at any time— 

sometimes referred to as the “fifth Miranda warning.” See Scott Lewis, Miranda Out On 

a Limb: How Much Flexibility Before Rules Are Broken?, 9-FALL Crim. Just. 20 (1994). 

While this Court has recognized that Miranda permits a person in police custody to 

terminate an interrogation, see syl. pt. 5, State v. Farley, 192 W. Va. 247, 452 S.E.2d 50 

(1994) (discussing a person’s right “to assert the Miranda right to terminate police 

interrogation”), like the U.S. Supreme Court we have not required an admonition to that 

effect. Thus, the Miranda warning given to Mr. Livermon prior to the unrecorded 

statement complied with Miranda and was not defective. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Livermon further argues that Detective Paschal’s offer to go “off the record” 

undermined the waiver of his Miranda rights. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 12 A.3d 1238, 1247– 

48 (Md. 2011) (providing that “[a]fter proper warnings and a knowing intelligent, and 

voluntary waiver, the interrogator may not say or do something during the ensuing 

interrogation that subverts those warnings and thereby vitiates the suspect’s earlier 

waiver by rendering it unknowing, involuntary, or both.”). This Court has said that 

“[a]bsent a knowing and intelligent waiver of the Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination, a statement made by a suspect during in-custody interrogation is 

inadmissible.” State v. Bradshaw, 193 W. Va. 519, 527, 457 S.E.2d 456, 464 (1995) 

(citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475). 

Under the circumstances in this case, we conclude that Mr. Livermon could not 

have reasonably believed that anything he said while the detective’s recording device was 

turned off could not later be used against him. Detective Paschal made no promises to 

Mr. Livermon that any statement given while the recording device was turned off would 

remain between the two of them. See Hopkins v. Cockrell, 325 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 

2003) (officer’s assurance that defendant’s statement would be “for me and you” and that 

it would not be “for nobody else” vitiated the defendant’s prior waiver of his Miranda 

rights); Spence v. State, 642 S.E.2d 856, 858 (Ga. 2007) (officer’s assurance that the 

defendant’s statement would be “confidential” vitiated the defendant’s prior waiver of his 

Miranda rights). To the contrary, Detective Paschal informed Mr. Livermon that anything 

he said would be reported to Detective Graley. Further, Detective Paschal testified during 

the April 17, 2014, suppression hearing that Mr. Livermon made the unrecorded 

statement in a room containing prominent signage indicating that the room was under 

video and audio surveillance. While Detective Paschal offered to turn off his personal 

recording device, he made no representations that he would also turn off the audio and 

video recorders in the processing area or that anything recorded could not and would not 

be used against him.3 Under the specific facts of this case, we conclude that Detective 

Paschal’s “off the record” comment did not undermine Mr. Livermon’s prior decision to 

waive his Miranda rights. 

Mr. Livermon also asserts that his waiver of his Miranda rights was not voluntary 

because (1) he did not know the nature of the charges against him when the Miranda 

warnings were given, (2) because he did not receive Miranda warnings after he was 

informed that he was being charged with robbery and wanton endangerment, and (3) 

because Detective Paschal led him to believe that the unrecorded statement would not be 

used against him. He states that when he was given the Miranda warnings, he had been 

arrested for possession of marijuana, that the Miranda wavier form only listed possession 

3 Detective Paschal testified during the April 17, 2014, suppression hearing that 

because of a problem with the audio recording equipment in the processing room, Mr. 

Livermon’s statement was not recorded. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of marijuana as the crime with which he had been charged, that he was under the 

impression that his statements could only be used against him in relation to the marijuana 

charge, and that the unrecorded statement would be “off the record” and not used against 

him in the future. 

In support of his position that the unrecorded statement was made following an 

involuntary waiver of his rights, Mr. Livermon directs us to State v. Goff, 169 W. Va. 

778, 289 S.E.2d 473 (1982), in which we said: 

Some courts have indicated that in determining whether there has 

been a voluntary waiver of Miranda rights under the totality rule one factor 

may be whether the defendant was ever advised initially of the nature of the 

charge against him. Other courts have reached an opposite conclusion that 

there is no necessity of informing the defendant of the nature of the charge 

prior to giving the Miranda warnings. We believe that some information 

should be given to the defendant as to the nature of the charge in order that 

he can determine whether to intelligently and voluntarily exercise or waive 

his Miranda rights. 

Id. at 784 n.8, 289 S.E.2d at 477 n.8 (citations omitted). 

We also observe that “[a] criminal suspect who knowingly and voluntarily waives 

his Miranda rights need not be re-advised of those rights during subsequent 

interrogations, so long as the initial waiver retains its efficacy.” State v. DeWeese, 213 W. 

Va. 339, 350, 582 S.E.2d 786, 797 (2003) (quoting Yung v. State, 906 P.2d 1028, 1033 

(Wyo. 1995)). In determining whether an initial waiver retains its efficacy, courts should 

consider 

(1) the length of time between the giving of the first warnings and 

subsequent interrogation; (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent 

interrogation were given in the same or different places; (3) whether the 

warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the 

same or different officers; (4) the extent to which the subsequent statement 

differed from any previous statements; and (5) the apparent intellectual and 

emotional state of the suspect. 

Syl. pt. 5, id. (in part). 

We further note that the Court has held, “Misrepresentations made to a defendant 

or other deceptive practices by police officers will not necessarily invalidate a confession 

unless they are shown to have affected its voluntariness or reliability.” Syl. pt. 6, State v. 

Worley, 179 W. Va. 403, 369 S.E.2d 706 (1988); see also syl. State v. Parsons, 108 W. 

Va. 705, 152 S.E. 745 (1930) (“When the representations of one in authority are 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

calculated to foment hope or despair in the mind of the accused to any material degree, 

and a confession ensues, it cannot be deemed voluntary.”). Voluntariness is judged under 

the totality of the circumstances. See Bradshaw, 193 W. Va. at 527, 457 S.E.2d at 464. 

We acknowledge that when both of the interrogations of Mr. Livermon began, he 

had only been officially charged with possession of marijuana. However, Detective 

Gordon testified during the April 17, 2014, pretrial hearing, “I informed him during the 

[first interrogation] that I had already obtained two statements who stated that he was 

involved with [the robbery], that he owned the firearm or possessed the firearm that was 

used in that robbery.” Moreover, Mr. Livermon admits in his brief that “the bulk of the 

[first interrogation] centered on the robbery and shooting that had occurred.” Under these 

facts, it is clear that when Mr. Livermon voluntarily waived his Miranda rights at the 

outset of the second interrogation, he was aware that he was under investigation for the 

events surrounding the robbery of Ms. Coffman and Mr. Rencher. 

Additionally, the facts of the case show that the Miranda warning remained 

effective through Mr. Livermon’s unrecorded statement. The length of time between 

receiving the latest Miranda warning and the unrecorded statement was minimal—less 

than two hours; the warning was given and the interrogation conducted by Detective 

Paschal; the unrecorded statement did not differ substantially from the recorded portion 

of the statement in which Mr. Livermon admitted to taking an SKS rifle belonging to the 

father of Breanna; and neither the State nor Mr. Livermon alleges that he was 

intellectually or emotionally compromised at the time he made the unrecorded statement. 

Finally, the record reflects that Detective Paschal did not deceive Mr. Livermon 

regarding the confidentiality of statements made while the detective’s recording device 

was turned off. Even if he had, there is no evidence and no allegation that Mr. 

Livermon’s will was overborn, causing Mr. Livermon to make the unrecorded statement. 

See Lee, 12 A.3d at 1253 (“As we have said, a mere promise, whether it be of leniency 

or, as here, confidentiality, without more, will not render a confession involuntary, for 

federal (or state) constitutional purposes.”). 

Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Livermon’s 

unrecorded statement was not the result of an involuntary waiver of his Miranda rights. 

He executed a valid waiver of his Miranda rights, the waiver of his rights at the 

commencement of the second interrogation remained valid and effective through giving 

the unrecorded statement, and Detective Paschal’s assertion did not coerce Mr. Livermon 

into in giving the statement. 

B. Prompt Presentment 

Mr. Livermon claims that the unrecorded statement was obtained in violation of 

his prompt presentment right. West Virginia’s prompt presentment rule is set forth in W. 

Va. Code § 62-1-5(a)(1) (1997) as follows: 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a 

complaint, or any person making an arrest without a warrant for an offense 

committed in his presence or as otherwise authorized by law, shall take the 

arrested person without unnecessary delay before a magistrate of the county 

where the arrest is made. 

Accord W. Va. R. Crim. P. 5(a). “[O]ne of the primary purposes of a prompt presentment 

statute is to ensure that the police do not use the delay to extract a confession from a 

defendant.” State v. Hutcheson, 177 W. Va. 391, 394, 352 S.E.2d 143, 146 (1986). “[A]n 

unjustifiable and unreasonable delay in taking the accused before a magistrate after his 

initial arrest may in itself be sufficient to render a confession involuntary.” State v. 

Persinger, 169 W. Va. 121, 137–38, 286 S.E.2d 261, 271 (1982). Necessary delays do 

not render a confession involuntary. 

Examples of necessary delay might include those required: 1) to carry out 

reasonable routine administrative procedures such as recording, 

fingerprinting and photographing; 2) to determine whether a charging 

document should be issued accusing the arrestee of a crime; 3) to verify the 

commission of the crimes specified in the charging document; 4) to obtain 

information likely to be a significant aid in averting harm to persons or loss 

to property of substantial value; 5) to obtain relevant nontestimonial 

information likely to be significant in discovering the identity or location of 

other persons who may have been associated with the arrestee in the 

commission of the offense for which he was apprehended, or in preventing 

the loss, alteration or destruction of evidence relating to such crime. 

Persinger, 169 W. Va. at 135–36, 457 S.E.2d at 270 (quoting Johnson v. State, 384 A.2d 

709, 717 (Md. 1978)). However, “[t]he delay in taking the defendant to a magistrate may 

be a critical factor where it appears that the primary purpose of the delay was to obtain a 

confession from the defendant.” Syl. pt. 6, Persinger, 169 W. Va. 121, 286 S.E.2d 261. 

“When a statement is obtained from an accused in violation of the prompt presentment 

rule, neither the statement nor matters learned directly from the statement may be 

introduced against the accused at trial.” Syl. pt. 1, DeWeese, 213 W. Va. 339, 582 S.E.2d 

786. 

In analyzing whether Mr. Livermon’s prompt presentment right was violated, we 

find State v. Mitter, 169 W. Va. 652, 289 S.E.2d 457 (1982), instructive. In Mitter, in the 

course of a murder investigation, police officers asked the defendant to come to the 

prosecutor’s office for questioning. Id. at 653, 289 S.E.2d at 459. The defendant arrived 

at about 1:00 p.m. and was interviewed by police officers. Id. During this interview, the 

defendant made a confession. Id. At 3:00 p.m., the defendant signed a written waiver of 

rights form, and deputies proceeded to transcribe the confession, ending the interview at 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4:30 p.m. Id. at 654, 289 S.E.2d at 459. The officers then left the defendant in the 

interrogation room and joined the prosecutor in discussing the discrepancies between the 

defendant’s statement and what they knew about the crime. Id. The officers returned to 

the interrogation room and took a second written confession from the defendant, 

beginning at 5:40 p.m. Id. at 655, 289 S.E.2d at 460. One officer stated that the purpose 

of the second interview as “[j]ust to clear up a few discrepancies.” Id. at 659, 289 S.E.2d 

at 462. The second confession was completed at 6:40 p.m. Id. at 655, 289 S.E.2d at 460. 

Thereafter, the defendant was formally arrested and arraigned before a magistrate. Id. 

On appeal, the defendant in Mitter argued that his confessions were taken in 

violation of his prompt presentment right and were involuntary. Id. at 657, 289 S.E.2d at 

461. The Court decided that the trial judge erred by admitting the second confession into 

evidence, reversing the case on that issue. Id. With regard to the first confession, the 

Court reasoned that at the time the defendant began the first confession, the officers did 

not have probable cause to arrest him, and that delay after they obtained probable cause 

was not “unnecessary” within the meaning of the prompt presentment rule because “[t]he 

purpose of that delay was not to obtain the confession but to transcribe it.” Id. at 658, 289 

S.E.2d at 461. However, with regard to the second confession, the Court said: 

By seeking a second confession to “clear up a few discrepancies” the police 

were actually holding the defendant for the explicit purpose of rendering a 

usable confession from him. A magistrate was available at the time and had 

been alerted that his services would be required. Under these facts the delay 

in taking the defendant before a magistrate after the first confession was so 

unjustifiable and unreasonable as to render the second written statement 

inadmissible. 

Id. at 659, 289 S.E.2d at 462. 

Mr. Livermon’s second interrogation bears a striking resemblance to the second 

interview of the defendant in Mitter. Like in Mitter, by the end of the first interrogation, 

the prompt presentment rule had been triggered by, in Mr. Livermon’s case, his arrest for 

possession of marijuana. Like the defendant in Mitter, Mr. Livermon was held following 

the first interrogation while the officers conducted further investigation despite a 

magistrate’s availability. Both the Mitter defendant and Mr. Livermon were then 

interrogated a second time. It is obvious to us, as it was obvious in Mitter, that the only 

purpose of conducting a second interrogation following “investigation” was to obtain an 

inculpatory statement from Mr. Livermon. Under these facts, we conclude that Mr. 

Livermon’s prompt presentment right was violated, and that the trial court erred by 

permitting the State to admit Mr. Livermon’s unrecorded statement. 

The State contends that any error in this case is not reversible, questioning whether 

the unrecorded statement is even inculpatory. Presuming that the statement is inculpatory, 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we agree with the State’s position that the admission of the unrecorded statement was 

entirely harmless. We have held that 

Where improper evidence of a nonconstitutional nature is introduced 

by the State in a criminal trial, the test to determine if the error is harmless 

is: (1) the inadmissible evidence must be removed from the State’s case and 

a determination made as to whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to 

convince impartial minds of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt; (2) if the remaining evidence is found to be insufficient, the error is 

not harmless; (3) if the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the 

conviction, an analysis must then be made to determine whether the error 

had any prejudicial effect on the jury. 

Syl. pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W. Va. 502, 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979). Here, removal of the 

unrecorded statement from the case would have had no effect on the jury’s verdict 

because evidence that the rifle was in Mr. Livermon’s possession and that it was stolen 

was presented through the testimony of Ms. Lowry without objection by defense counsel. 

The unrecorded statement was short and duplicative of other evidence, and in light of the 

substantial weight of the other evidence admitted during Mr. Livermon’s trial, including 

the testimony of others, we conclude that the admission of the unrecorded statement 

could not have had any prejudicial effect on the jury.4 

Finding no reversible error in this case, we affirm the circuit court’s May 19, 

2014, order convicting Mr. Livermon of one count of first degree robbery and five counts 

of wanton endangerment. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: November 15, 2016 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

4 To the extent that we found only one harmless error in this case, there is no merit 

to Mr. Livermon’s argument that the case contains reversible cumulative error. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCURRING, IN PART, AND DISSENTING, IN PART: 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

CONCURRING, IN PART, AND DISSENTING, IN PART, AND WRITING 

SEPARATELY: 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part, and writing 

separately: 

When a court is presented with a prompt presentment challenge, “the focus is not 

so much on the length of the detention but whether the police were primarily using the 

delay in bringing the defendant before a magistrate to obtain a confession from him.” 

State v. Persinger, 169 W.Va. 121, 136, 286 S.E.2d 261, 270 (1982). 

Following the petitioner’s arrest for marijuana possession, he was retained at 

police headquarters for approximately six hours during which time administrative matters 

were addressed, a search warrant was obtained, and the petitioner gave two voluntary 

Mirandized statements regarding other crimes being actively investigated. Although the 

petitioner never confessed to any crime for which he was arrested or charged, the delay in 

presenting him to a magistrate was clearly not for the primary purpose of securing a 

confession nor was it unnecessary. See Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Guthrie, 173 W.Va. 290, 315 

S.E.2d 397 (1984) (citation omitted) (“‘The delay in taking a defendant to a magistrate 

may be a critical factor [in the totality of circumstances making a confession involuntary 

and hence inadmissable] where it appears that the primary purpose of the delay was to 

obtain a confession from the defendant.’”). Consequently, although I concur in the 

majority’s decision to uphold the petitioner’s conviction, I dissent to its conclusion that 

there was a prompt presentment violation, albeit harmless error. 

Briefly, the facts demonstrate that during the police investigation of a robbery and 

wanton endangerment, a search warrant was executed on an apartment where police 

discovered a rifle believed to have been used to commit those crimes. Three persons 

were in the apartment at that time, including the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested 

for marijuana possession and transported to the police department, arriving at 

approximately 8:00 p.m. At 9:19 p.m., a detective advised the petitioner of his Miranda 

rights, which the petitioner agreed to waive and give a statement. Suppression hearing 

testimony reveals that the detective advised the petitioner that he was a suspect in the 

robbery and wanton endangerment, and his questions were directed toward those crimes. 

Once the interview concluded at approximately 10:30 p.m., the petitioner was placed in a 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

holding cell during which time the detective took the steps necessary to secure a search 

warrant to obtain a gunshot residue sample from the petitioner. The detective executed 

the search warrant on the petitioner around 1:05 a.m., and again advised him of his 

Miranda rights. The petitioner agreed to waive those rights and to give a second 

statement, during which questioning regarding the robbery and wanton endangerment 

resumed. At the conclusion of his second statement, the petitioner was advised that he 

was being charged with those other crimes. As he was being escorted to processing, the 

petitioner made an unrecorded statement that he had stolen the rifle that had been 

removed from the apartment when officers executed the search warrant. 

The manner in which the petitioner was questioned is somewhat similar to State v. 

Milburn, 204 W.Va. 203, 511 S.E.2d 838 (1998), where the defendant was detained and 

questioned regarding a different crime. In Milburn, the defendant was Mirandized and 

signed a waiver of rights form, after which she was questioned by the police. She 

confessed to arson around 11:00 a.m. Thereafter, the police advised the defendant that 

they wanted to question her regarding a murder, and she agreed to answer questions. 

Around 7:30 p.m., she confessed to the murder, as well. Seeking to suppress her 

confession, the defendant alleged the police had probable cause to arrest her on the arson 

charge at noon but, instead of presenting her to a magistrate, they continued to question 

her, eventually eliciting her murder confession. This Court concluded: 

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude that [the] 

prompt presentment rule was violated. The purpose of the delay in 

arresting the appellant and presenting her to a magistrate was not to obtain 

a confession for the crime for which the police had probable cause to arrest, 

i.e., the arson. Instead, the police sought to question the appellant at that 

time about a separate crime for which they had no probable cause to arrest. 

Id., 204 W.Va. at 212, 511 S.E.2d at 837. As in Milburn, the purpose in the delay was 

not to obtain a confession from the petitioner for marijuana possession. Instead, the 

police sought to question him at that time regarding the robbery and wanton 

endangerment for which the police had no probable cause to arrest. 

Certainly, an officer must “take the arrested person without unnecessary delay 

before a magistrate of the county where the arrest is made.” W.Va. Code § 62-1-5(a)(1) 

(2014) (emphasis added). If there is unnecessary delay during which a confession is 

obtained, a defendant may seek to suppress the confession alleging a violation of the 

requirement for prompt presentment. Significantly, however, the petitioner never 

confessed to either the crime for which he was arrested–marijuana possession–nor for the 

crime for which he was ultimately charged and convicted—robbery and wanton 

endangerment. Indeed, during the detective’s questions, the petitioner never admitted to 

ever having fired any gun, let alone the rifle he admitted to stealing. Moreover, it does 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not appear that the petitioner was ever charged with the theft of the rifle. Critically, 

absent such a confession, there is simply no prompt presentment violation. 

Even if the petitioner’s statement that he had stolen the rifle could be transmuted 

into a confession to having committed robbery and wanton endangerment, as indicated 

above, not all delays vitiate a confession—only those that are unnecessary. See W.Va. 

Code § 62-1-5(a)(1). By way of example, this Court has explained that 

“necessary delay might include those required: 1) to carry out 

reasonable routine administrative procedures such as 

recording, fingerprinting and photographing; 2) to determine 

whether a charging document should be issued accusing the 

arrestee of a crime; 3) to verify the commission of the crimes 

specified in the charging document; 4) to obtain information 

likely to be a significant aid in averting harm to persons or 

loss to property of substantial value; 5) to obtain relevant 

nontestimonial information likely to be significant in 

discovering the identity or location of other persons who may 

have been associated with the arrestee in the commission of 

the offense for which he was apprehended, or in preventing 

the loss, alteration or destruction of evidence relating to such 

crime.” 

Persinger, 169 W.Va. at 135-36, 286 S.E.2d at 270 (citation omitted); see also State v. 

Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 395-96, 456 S.E.2d 469, 476-77 (1995) (footnote omitted) 

(“Certain delays such as delays in the transportation of a defendant to the police station, 

completion of booking and administrative procedures, recordation and transcription of a 

statement, and the transportation of a defendant to the magistrate do not offend the 

prompt presentment requirement.”). Certainly, another example of a necessary delay is 

the time it takes to secure a search warrant to obtain a gunshot residue sample. 

Based on the foregoing and under the totality of the circumstances, I do not 

believe there has been a prompt presentment violation in this matter. Accordingly, I 

respectfully concur, in part, and dissent, in part. I am authorized to state that Justice 

Workman joins me in this concurrence and dissent. 

14