Opinion ID: 3205575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Provide a Bill of Particulars

Text: The petitioner’s last assignment of error is that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s failure to provide a bill of particulars regarding the alleged use of a firearm. According to the petitioner, his motion for a bill of particulars was granted by the trial court; however, the State failed to provide him with a bill of particulars throughout his trial. The petitioner claims he needed more detail from the State regarding the alleged use of a firearm and how such use violated the law. The petitioner further contends discovery was incomplete under Rule 7(f) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure13 because he never received the bill of particulars and, therefore, he was not provided a fair trial. The State maintains the petitioner was fully informed of the nature of the charges against him by the 13 Rule 7(f) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: Bill of particulars. – The court may direct the filing of a bill of particulars. A motion for a bill of particulars shall be made pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12(b)(4) or at such later time as the court may permit. A bill of particulars may be amended at any time subject to such conditions as justice requires. 23 indictment and, therefore, the fact that the petitioner did not receive a bill of particulars does not constitute reversible error. This Court has long recognized “[i]t is fundamental that the accused must be fully and plainly informed of the character and cause of the accusation. The Constitution so requires. . . . A bill of particulars is for the purpose of furnishing details omitted from the accusation or indictment, to which the defendant is entitled before trial.” State v. Counts, 90 W.Va. 338, 342, 110 S.E. 812, 814 (1922). In this case, count two of the indictment charged the petitioner with “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously commit[ting] the felony charged in Count 1 [First Degree Murder] by the use, presentment or brandishment of a firearm, in violation of West Virginia Code §§ 62-12-1 and 62-12-13, as amended, against the peace and dignity of the State.” Count four of the indictment charged that the petitioner committed the criminal offense of “Wanton Endangerment Involving a Firearm” by feloniously and wantonly performing an act with a firearm which created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, to wit: prior to matters otherwise alleged herein, Denny Franklin Ervin discharged a firearm in a threatening manner and in close proximity to the daughters of Leslie Dawn Layman, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61­ 7-12, as amended, against the peace and dignity of the State. Upon review, we find the indictment fully informed the petitioner of the charges against him.14 The indictment provided details as to the nature of the allegations with respect to how 14 It was also asserted in count five of the indictment that the petitioner discharged a firearm during the commission of domestic assault. However, the petitioner was not 24 the firearm was used to commit the alleged offenses and identified the victims of those offenses. The petitioner has presented no evidence that the State’s failure to provide a bill of particulars deprived him of exculpatory material or impaired his cross-examination of witnesses. While we have previously indicated that “we are unanimously of the opinion that the proper way to try a criminal case is to be responsive to all reasonable defense requests,” State v. Sette, 167 W.Va. 385[, 397] 242 S.E.2d 464, 472 (1978), we have also held that, absent a showing that lack of discovery was prejudicial there is no reversible error, Wilhelm v. Whyte, W.Va., 239 S.E.2d 735, 739 (1977). State v. White, 167 W.Va. 374, 384-85, 280 S.E.2d 114, 121-22 (1981). Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.