Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=16-0437&s=WV&d=125515
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:44:58+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff's Attorney: Patrick Morrisey, Esq.
Gordon L. Mowen, II, Esq.
Defendant's Attorney: Nicholas T. James, Esq.
1 Petitioner was sentenced to life with mercy on the murder conviction, three to ten years imprisonment on the hostage conviction, and two to six years imprisonment on each of the drug convictions. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. A third drug charge was dismissed.
taking the prescription pills and drinking alcohol. After a few of the guests did not see Ms.
Cantwell in the house, they asked Petitioner where she was. Petitioner stated that Ms.
Mr. Snyder was able to see Ms. Cantwell lying on a bed with her pants off.
2 It appears that Petitioner had a previous back injury and “had been getting prescription drugs for years” to treat his back pain. 3 Ms. Kivett and Ms. Cantwell were cousins. It appears that Ms. Kivett and Ms. Cantwell were temporarily living at Petitioner’s home. Ms. Cantwell had recently broken up with her boyfriend and went to live with Ms. Kivett to help recover from the breakup. 4 Mr. Snyder and Ms. Cantwell were cousins.
contact with Ms. Cantwell during this time. Ms. Kivett had the impression that Ms.
repeatedly knocked on Petitioner’s bedroom door, which was locked, but got no answer.
vomit coming out of her mouth and blood coming out of her nose and ears; she was dead.
on February 19, 2016.6 The prosecutor presented testimony from nineteen witnesses.
5 See Syl. pt. 7, State v. Sims, 162 W.Va. 212, 248 S.E.2d 834 (1978) (“The crime of felony-murder in this State does not require proof of the elements of malice, premeditation or specific intent to kill. It is deemed sufficient if the homicide occurs accidentally during the commission of, or the attempt to commit, one of the enumerated felonies.”). 6 The case was originally presided over by the Honorable Judge Phil Jordan. Judge Jordan retired on December 31, 2015, and was succeeded by the Honorable Judge Lynn Nelson.
to the trial court during its deliberations. The trial court responded to each of the questions.
7 The underlying felony-murder charge, delivery of Oxycodone, was dismissed. See Syl. pt. 8, State v. Williams, 172 W. Va. 295, 305 S.E.2d 251 (1983) (“Double jeopardy prohibits an accused charged with felony-murder, as defined by W. Va. Code § 61–2–1 (1977 Replacement Vol.), from being separately tried or punished for both murder and the underlying enumerated felony.”). 8 At the time of the motion, the State had not filed a response brief to the appeal. 9 The jury questions and responses are presented in the Discussion section of the opinion. 10 This Court agreed to remand the issue for further development because the trial judge did not go on the record when he responded to five of the seven questions.
On remand, a hearing was conducted before a new judge, the Honorable H.
11 Two attorneys represented the Petitioner during the trial: John G. Ours and J. Stuart Bowers, II. Mr. Bowers had to leave the trial, prior to the jury questions, because of a family medical emergency. For the purpose of the jury question issues in this case, all references to Petitioner’s trial counsel means Mr. Ours only. 12 The other witnesses were court personnel who attended the trial. 13 The trial judge was somewhat equivocal and stated that trial counsel may have been “present or conferred with on the second one.” 14 Trial counsel was allegedly at a McDonald’s restaurant.
15 During the remand hearing, Petitioner learned for the first time that the trial judge went to the jury room with the bailiff and asked the jury if they wanted to recess for the evening. We will not address this issue as an assignment of error because it was not adequately briefed as such. See Syl. pt. 6, Addair v. Bryant, 168 W.Va. 306, 284 S.E.2d 374 (1981) (“Assignments of error that are not argued in the briefs on appeal may be deemed by this Court to be waived.”). However, we will point out that the manner in which the trial judge handled the matter was not consistent with this Court’s guidelines. See Syl. pt. 3, State v. Keaton, 215 W. Va. 376, 599 S.E.2d 799 (2004) (“The best practices to be followed when a trial judge addresses or converses with a juror or the jury in a criminal proceeding are as follows, unless special circumstances—that should be fully spread upon the record—dictate otherwise: (1) the judge should address or converse with jurors on the record and in the presence of the defendant and his or her counsel unless the defendant personally and affirmatively waives the right to be present; (2) when a trial judge addresses or converses with one or more jurors and the defendant and his or her counsel are not present, the defendant and his or her counsel should be furnished with a prompt oral summary by the trial court and a subsequent transcript of the address or conversation; (3) after the substance or transcript of the address or conversation are made known to the defendant and his or her counsel, any alleged error in or problem with the address or conversation should be promptly presented to the trial court in an appropriate motion—although failure to do so does not per se preclude raising any alleged error or problem in the address or conversation on appeal.”).
the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence.” Syl. pt.
factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.
The trial court’s disposition of a motion for judgment of acquittal is subject to our de novo review; therefore, this Court, like the trial court, must scrutinize the evidence in the light most compatible with the verdict, resolve all credibility disputes in the verdict's favor, and then reach a judgment about whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sixth Amendment violation was waived.
Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution bars the admission of a testimonial statement by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Syl. pt. 8, Mechling, in part.
circuit court to the nature of the claimed defect.’ Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Cooper v.
testimony, but never stated any specific ground for the objection. We have addressed the issue of a general objection as follows: A general objection overruled is of small value to the objector on appeal.... The rationale of this rule is that the proponent of the evidence should be given an opportunity to meet the objection by reframing the question, laying the necessary foundation, or by other means. A general objection does not offer him this opportunity. Thus, the objector in most instances will lose his rights on appeal by failing to take further action after his general objection has been overruled.
State v. McFarland, 175 W. Va. 205, 220, 332 S.E.2d 217, 232 (1985), superseded by Court rule as recognized in State v. Joseph, 214 W. Va. 525, 590 S.E.2d 718 (2003) (citation omitted). See 1 Louis J. Palmer, Jr., et al., Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers, § 103.03[b], at 71 (6th Ed. 2015) (“Rule 103(a)(1) provides that protests to the admission of evidence are to be specific, ‘unless it was apparent from the context.’ For this reason a general objection under the rules is not preferred and may be insufficient, when overruled, to preserve the error for appeal.”).
17 Petitioner has asked this Court to review the issue under the plain error rule. See State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 18, 459 S.E.2d 114, 129 (1995) (“The ‘plain error’ doctrine grants appellate courts, in the interest of justice, the authority to notice error to which no objection has been made.”). We decline to do so. See State v. Henson, 239 W. Va. 898, 908 n.16, 806 S.E.2d 822, 832 n.16 (2017) (“We also decline to invoke the plain error doctrine regarding this alleged error[.]”); State v. Fleming, 237 W. Va. 44, 55, 784 S.E.2d 743, 754 (2016) (“we decline to invoke the plain error rule on this issue.”); State v. Rogers, 231 W. Va. 205, 216, 744 S.E.2d 315, 326 (2013) (“we decline to invoke the plain error doctrine regarding alleged misstatement of law made by the prosecutor.”). We will note in passing that federal courts have indicated that the United States Supreme Court has not expressly ruled that a Crawford violation occurs in the context of a supervising official, like Dr. Kraner, testifying about test results done by a subordinate. See Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 672, 131 S. Ct. 2705, 2722, 180 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part) (observing that the Supreme has not addressed the situation “in which the person testifying is a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue.”); Black v. United States, 2017 WL 405933, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2017) (“courts have recognized that it remains an open question whether someone in Dr. Nieberding’s position may testify as to a test conducted by a subordinate employee under his supervision.”).
of resisting his sexual advances.
arbitrary and irrational that it can be said to have abused its discretion.” McGinnis, 193 W.
Va. at 159, 455 S.E.2d at 528.
Where an offer of evidence is made under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the trial court, pursuant to Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, is to determine its admissibility. Before admitting the evidence, the trial court should conduct an in camera hearing as stated in State v. Dolin, 176 W. Va. 688, 347 S.E.2d 208 (1986). After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct occurred and that the defendant committed the acts. If the trial court does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct was committed or that the defendant was the actor, the evidence should be excluded under Rule 404(b). If a sufficient showing has been made, the trial court must then determine the relevancy of the evidence under Rules 401 and 402 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and conduct the balancing required under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. If the trial court is then satisfied that the Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible, it should instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which such evidence has been admitted. A limiting instruction should be given at the time the evidence is offered, and we recommend that it be repeated in the trial court’s general charge to the jury at the conclusion of the evidence.
that Petitioner tried to seduce her several times while she was under the influence of drugs.
18 The trial court prohibited the evidence from being introduced on the hostage charge, because the State failed to provide timely notice to the Petitioner that the evidence would be used for that offense as well. See Rule 404(b)(2) (“Any party seeking the admission of evidence pursuant to this subsection must: (A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature and the specific and precise purpose for which the evidence is being offered by the party at trial; and (B) do so before trial—or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.”).
that may be used to show a common plan or scheme.
matter of the indictment, is admissible under the rubric of intent, plan, scheme or design.”).
of the knives was prejudicial, such evidence was not unfairly prejudicial.”); State v.
19 We summarily reject Petitioner’s poorly drafted purported alternative argument that the trial court “erred by admitting too much 404(b) evidence.” Petitioner appears to argue that the trial court improperly allowed evidence from, and about, a previously excluded witness; and admitted previously excluded text messages by Ms. Kivett (this is actually another separate assignment of error). According to the Petitioner this evidence, combined with the Rule 404(b) evidence, constituted too much Rule 404(b) evidence and was cumulative. We find no merit to this argument. See 1 Palmer, et al., Handbook on Evidence, § 403.05, at 306 (“The mere fact that evidence is cumulative is not a basis for exclusion under Rule 403, rather, a trial court is only authorized to exclude the ‘needless presentation’ of cumulative evidence.”).
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 14(a) is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Syl.
If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of the counts or provide whatever other relief justice requires.
this issue. Accordingly, we decline to address this inadequately briefed issue.”); State v.
Procedure. Thus, we decline to address petitioner’s additional alleged errors[.]”).
F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 2006) (“the law recognizes a strong presumption that juries follow limiting instructions.”); United States v. Francisco, 35 F.3d 116, 119 (4th Cir. 1994) (“We generally follow the presumption that the jury obeyed the limiting instructions of the district court.”).
21 We wish to point out that Petitioner’s brief on this issue is quite disingenuous. Rather than making it clear from the outset that this issue was not raised below, the brief presents three and a half pages of law explaining why the trial court committed error in not severing the charges, before the brief mentions in passing that we can only review the issue under plain error. We caution attorneys that they have a duty of candor in writing briefs and should not allow overzealousness to obfuscate that duty.
right to be present or that his absence was harmless error.
The defendant has a right under Article III, Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution to be present at all critical stages in the criminal proceeding; and when he is not, the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what transpired in his absence was harmless.
The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of the plea, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by this rule.
trial therefor.”22 This Court set out the effect of this statute in Syllabus point 3 of State v.
22 The statute, which predates Rule 43(a), is not inconsistent with that rule; therefore, we may look to the statute and decisions interpreting it for guidance. See Syl. pt. 5, State v. Wallace, 205 W.Va. 155, 517 S.E.2d 20 (1999) (“The West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure are the paramount authority controlling criminal proceedings before the circuit courts of this jurisdiction; any statutory or common-law procedural rule that conflicts with these Rules is presumptively without force or effect.”).
absence which may have affected him by possibly prejudicing him, reversible error occurs.
285 S.E.2d 371 (1981). See Syl. pt. 8, in part, Blair (“If an accused demonstrates that . . .
questions may be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds under Rule 43(a). See Syl. pt.
Rule 43(a) requires trial courts to disclose communications with jurors and provide the defendant with an opportunity to be heard prior to responding to the communications. Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 39, 95 S. Ct. 2091, 2095, 45 L.Ed.2d 1, 6 (1975). At the time the trial court informed the parties of the communication and advised them of his plan to communicate with the jury alone, the defendant failed to raise an objection, but specifically said he had no objection to the procedure. Nevertheless the defendant now insists the error should be corrected under our plain error doctrine. Our consideration of this issue is controlled by State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995). Under Miller, plain error is only available to correct error if the error was not waived. Thus, we must first determine whether the error was waived or forfeited.
Crabtree, 198 W. Va. at 630-631, 482 S.E.2d at 615-616. See State v. Cornelius B., No.
23 We frequently look to federal decisions for guidance when we are construing a rule of this Court that is patterned after a federal rule. See State v. Hedrick, 204 W. Va. 547, 554, 514 S.E.2d 397, 404 (1999) (“Consequently, because the relevant provisions of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 46 are substantially the same as Rule 46 of the Federal Rules, we look to the federal courts for guidance.”). 24Federal Rule 43(a) is drafted as follows: Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at: (1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea; (2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and (3) sentencing.
Federal Rule Crim. Proc. 43 guarantees to a defendant in a criminal trial the right to be present ‘at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict.’ Cases interpreting the Rule make it clear, if our decisions prior to the promulgation of the Rule left any doubt, that the jury’s message should have been answered in open court and that petitioner’s counsel should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded. Although a violation of Rule 43 may in some circumstances be harmless error, the nature of the information conveyed to the jury, in addition to the manner in which it was conveyed, does not permit that conclusion in this case. The trial judge should not have confined his response to the jury’s inquiry to an indication of willingness to accept a verdict with a recommendation of ‘extreme mercy.’ At the very least, the court should have reminded the jury that the recommendation would not be binding in any way. In addition, the response should have included the admonition that the jury had no sentencing function and should reach its verdict without regard to what sentence might be imposed.
Rogers, 422 U.S. at 39–40, 95 S. Ct. at 2095 (citations omitted). See United States v.
violation is subject to harmless error analysis.
25 This assertion is based upon testimony by the bailiff.
26 Petitioner was asked about trial counsel’s absence when the first two jury questions were submitted: Q. Okay. Did—there has been some questions that the State has asked of whether or not you objected to Mr. Ours not being present. Did you ever object and say, hey, you know, I—I want to wait until Mr. Ours is here, or did you even know you could object? I mean— A. I didn’t even know I could object. Q. How far did you go in school? A. To the seventh grade. Q. Can you read and write? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. So if the Judge were to show you a jury instruction, you wouldn’t be able to say—tell what it says? A. No, sir.
two jury questions without his counsel present.
judge’s testimony that Petitioner’s counsel was present for the last five jury questions.
Q. You can’t read or write at all? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Did you ever bring that to the attention of the trial judge, Judge Nelson? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. So Judge Nelson knew that you couldn’t read and write? A. Yeah. 27 Even if we assumed that Petitioner’s counsel was present for the remaining questions, there is nothing in the record to show that defense counsel waived the right of the Petitioner to be present.
“knowingly and intelligently waived his right to be present.” State v. Brown, 210 W. Va.
Q. So your testimony is you only recall being here for two questions? A. That’s correct. Q. Okay. Did you ever ask to come back into the courtroom? A. No. I didn’t know I could. They just took me over there. Q. Did you request to go into the holding facility? A. No. Q. Well, who made the decision to take you over to the holding facility? A. They—I guess they took me over to eat lunch. Deputy Thorne come over and asked me what I wanted from McDonald’s.
when the last five jury questions were submitted.
the standard of review in determining whether an error is harmless depends on whether the error was constitutional or nonconstitutional. . . . As to error not involving the erroneous admission of evidence, we have held that nonconstitutional error is harmless when it is highly probable the error did not contribute to the judgment.
28 The original Count IV of the indictment, delivery of Oxycodone, was dismissed because it was the underlying offense for the felony-murder charge. In an effort not to confuse the jury during deliberation, the original Count V (delivery of Xanax) was renamed Count IV. Danielle Fann was at the party at Petitioner’s home on September 12.
Question 2: Are we allowed to have access to the account listing that Mr. Ours showed on the overhead projector? Answer: No—you have received all you will.
Question 3: Was she detained on a certain date on Count II? Answer: The ___ day of September 2013.
Question 4: Does this pertain to Lexi? Answer: Yes.
Question 6: Legal definition of detain? Answer: To detain as the possession of personality. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold or keep in custody, to retard, to restrain from proceeding, to stay, to stop.
29 Question 3 is to be read in conjunction with Question 4, because Question 4 identifies the person referenced to in Question 3. 30 Petitioner also argued in his brief that he was prejudiced by Question 5 because he does not know how the response was conveyed to the jury. This issue has no merit. The trial judge testified at the hearing that the requested exhibit was sent to the jury. During oral argument the Petitioner asserted for the first time that the response to Question 1 was incorrect, because the indictment did not specifically name the person receiving the controlled substances in Count III and Count IV. We reject this argument. The response was correct based upon the evidence presented at trial, which showed that Ms. Cantwell and Danielle Fann were provided Xanax at the party on September 12.
31 The State called two investigating officers to present the text messages at the hearing. 32 Our cases have “consistently held that evidence which is ‘intrinsic’ to the indicted charge is not governed by Rule 404(b).” State v. Harris, 230 W.Va. 717, 722, 742 S.E.2d 133, 138 (2013). See State v. Spinks, 239 W. Va. 588, 605, 803 S.E.2d 558, 575 (2017); State v. Bowling, 232 W. Va. 529, 547, 753 S.E.2d 27, 45 (2013); LaRock, 196 W. Va. at 312 n.29, 470 S.E.2d at 631 n.29. 33 As a successor judge, Judge Nelson was empowered to take any action that Judge Jordan was authorized to take. See Syl. pt. 7, in part, Coleman v. Sopher, 201 W.Va. 588, 499 S.E.2d 592 (1997) (“Generally, when a successor judge is properly assigned ..., such successor judge steps into the shoes of his or her predecessor and, when the transcript of the proceedings is sufficient, may take any action that such predecessor may properly have taken, either upon proper motion or sua sponte.”).
omitted). We decline to address this inadequately briefed issue on the merits. See State v.
of the challenged photographs violated her due process and equal protection rights.
beyond reasonable doubt on both counts.
1. The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. 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 34 Petitioner contended that the evidence was insufficient for all of the charges, but he only briefed the sufficiency of evidence for Counts I and V. “Although we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are . . . mentioned only in passing but are not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.” LaRock, 196 W.Va. at 302, 470 S.E.2d at 621. We find that the Petitioner has waived the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence for the other counts by failing to brief those charges.
find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.
the Petitioner told her that he believed he killed Ms. Cantwell by giving her too many pills.
Petitioners’ respective convictions in this case beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
35 As previously mentioned, the original Count V was renamed Count IV after the original Count IV (delivery of Oxycodone) was dismissed. The Petitioner has briefed this issue using Count V as it appeared in the indictment. 36 Further, during cross-examination of the toxicologist, Dr. Kraner, defense counsel asked the following question: Q. The alprazolam, that’s the common name for Xanax; right? A. Yes.
as Xanax) in his system.”).
court sentencing the Petitioner for his convictions of first-degree murder, holding a hostage to defile, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 61
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 103
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 403
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 V.