Opinion ID: 1324615
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State's Failure to Inform Appellant of Intent to Use Evidence of Flight

Text: The Appellant also alleges that he was denied due process by the State's failure to inform him of its intent to elicit flight evidence. The Appellant had requested flight evidence in the Omnibus Discovery Motion, and the State had not provided the Appellant with any notice of flight evidence. In syllabus point seven of Acord v. Hedrick, 176 W.Va. 154, 342 S.E.2d 120 (1986), this Court explained: In certain circumstances evidence of the flight of the defendant will be admissible in a criminal trial as evidence of the defendant's guilty conscience or knowledge. Prior to admitting such evidence, however, the trial judge, upon request by either the State or the defendant, should hold an in camera hearing to determine whether the probative value of such evidence outweighs its possible prejudicial effect. Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Payne, 167 W.Va. 252, 280 S.E.2d 72 (1981). In the present case, there were two instances of alleged flight evidence presented during trial. An in camera hearing was not held on this issue. During the direct testimony of Officer Joe Smith, the State elicited the following testimony: Q. I'm assuming later on someone arrested Walter Jessie. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Why did you arrest Walter Jessie? A. Uh  We got a warrant for him and I believe they actually picked him up maybe in Ohio. I'm not sure, but I'm going to say that, or maybe back here. It was later, though. I don't have the date of arrest, but the incident occurred on the 1st of August, 2004, and we've got information he went to Ohio right after it happened and we were unable to get him picked up because we couldn't find out where he was and he was arrested sometime after that back here. Counsel for the Appellant did not object to that testimony. Moreover, as the State contends, the evidence was introduced in an attempt to explain the investigation and the delays, rather than in an attempt to establish any intent by the Appellant to escape or evade capture. In the second instance of alleged flight evidence, the following exchange occurred during the testimony of Melanie Jessie: Q. Eventually, were you with Walter when he was located, arrested? A. Uh  I was with him but not with him. He was  excuse me  he was Ginsenging when they picked him up. He was coming out of the mountains at the head of Pigeon Creek. Q. How many days after this? A. It was about a month or two. I'm not sure. Q. Did you wonder why it took a month? A. Why did it take a month? Q. I asked the question. Did you ever think about it? A. No. Q. Did Walter ever go to Ohio during this time? Counsel for the Appellant then objected, and the objection was sustained. In a bench conference immediately thereafter, the trial court informed the State as follows: If you had evidence of flight we could have had an in camera hearing and we could have proceeded with it. No other evidence even remotely referencing flight was introduced. With regard to the first instance of reference to the State of Ohio, in the absence of an objection, the Appellant would have to establish plain error in order to obtain the appellate relief he seeks. As this Court explained in syllabus point seven of Miller, in order [t]o trigger application of the `plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. 194 W.Va. at 5, 459 S.E.2d at 116. This Court has also observed that [i]n criminal cases, plain error is error which is so conspicuous that the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the defendant's timely assistance in detecting the error. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816, 827 (1982). State v. Marple, 197 W.Va. 47, 52, 475 S.E.2d 47, 52 (1996). The record reflects that the Appellant's presence in the State of Ohio was referenced fleetingly and without accompanying evidence attempting to indicate or insinuate intent to flee this jurisdiction. We decline to apply the plain error doctrine based upon the absence of any indication that this reference affected the Appellant's substantial rights or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The Appellant's objection to the second reference to the State of Ohio was sustained, and no additional evidence was elicited regarding the Appellant's presence in another state. We find no error in the trial court's ruling in this regard, and we find no violation of the Appellant's due process rights.