Opinion ID: 3205575
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Request for Jury View

Text: The petitioner first contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a jury visit to the site where the shooting occurred.7 The petitioner contends the jury should have been allowed to view the victim’s mobile home in relation to the location of Roger Curry’s residence; Mark Atkinson’s residence; the chicken coop; the brush/tree line; an abandoned home; the area where the petitioner parked the Subaru; the homes of other State witnesses; and the road leading to the victim’s parents’ home. The petitioner contends visiting the site would have allowed the jury to get a sense of the crime scene. The trial occurred in April and was close to the time of year –May–when the shooting occurred. The petitioner acknowledges the vegetation might have been slightly different but contends that 7 West Virginia Code § 56-6-17 (2012) provides: The jury may, in any case, at the request of either party, be taken to view the premises or place in question, or any property, matter or thing relating to the controversy between the parties, when it shall appear to the court that such view is necessary to a just decision, and in such case the judge presiding at the trial may go with the jury and control the proceedings; and in a felony case the judge and the clerk shall go with the jury and the judge shall control the proceedings, and the accused shall likewise be taken with the jury or, if under recognizance, shall attend the view and his recognizance shall be construed to require such attendance. The party making the motion, in a civil case, shall advance a sum sufficient to defray the expenses of the jury and the officers who attend them in taking the view, which expenses shall be afterwards taxed like other legal costs. 11 overall there was not a significant change in the area since the shooting occurred. The petitioner maintains that where self-defense is asserted, it is important for the jury to know the “lay of the land” where the incident occurred. Conversely, the State contends the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the petitioner’s motion. Noting there were numerous photographs, charts, and aerial shots that allowed the jury to visualize the scene of the crime, the State asserts the petitioner simply failed to set forth a legitimate purpose for a jury view of the site of the alleged offenses. This Court has long held that “[a] motion for a jury view lies peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and, unless the denial of such view works probable injury to the moving party, the ruling will not be disturbed.” Syl. Pt. 1, Collar v. McMullin, 107 W.Va. 440, 148 S.E. 496 (1929). Here, the record reflects the circuit court denied the petitioner’s motion because the parties agreed prior to trial that the scene was no longer as it was on the night of the shooting due to the removal of some vehicles that might be of issue and the absence of foliage that would have been there when the shooting occurred.8 The 8 The petitioner was appointed new counsel to handle all post-conviction matters after the trial court entered the sentencing order. While the record indicates the petitioner’s trial counsel acknowledged prior to trial that the site of the offenses had changed since the shooting because of the removal of certain vehicles, the petitioner’s appellate counsel maintains the site was sufficiently similar to have warranted a jury visit. 12 court also considered the fact that the location of the shooting was thirty minutes from the courthouse and there were numerous photos and other documents available to present at trial to allow the jury to visualize the scene of the alleged offenses. Given these facts and the broad discretion afforded to the trial court on this issue, we conclude there is no merit to this assignment of error.