Opinion ID: 1282340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Criminal Appeal

Text: Defendant contends the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction for first degree murder. He claims as well that State's Instructions Nos. 2 and 3 were erroneous. He also urges that the State's failure to inform defense counsel of the ownership of a pistol found near the scene of the killing several days after the shooting constituted a failure of discovery or refusal to turn over exculpatory evidence. Finally, defendant contends that the doctrine of cumulative error elevates some or all of these errors to a level which requires a reversal of the case.
Much of the critical evidence surrounding the homicide is not in dispute. The defendant was tried for killing Arbie Williamson, a tenant of the defendant who lived next door. At the time of the homicide, the defendant was fifty-nine years of age and lived with his wife and two daughters. He had some physical disability to his back as a result of a mine accident. The events that led to the homicide had their roots in an argument over property Williamson rented from Hatfield. The victim, Williamson, had become delinquent in his rent and the defendant had instituted legal proceedings to have the victim and his family evicted. On the day of the homicide, the victim discovered that the gas service to the tenant house had been disconnected. Williamson went into the defendant's yard where he had an argument with the defendant about the cutting off of the gas. The victim then left and went to an adjoining neighbor's house to make a telephone call. While he was gone, his wife, Patricia Williamson, came out of the tenant house and had a further argument with the defendant. She threatened to sue the defendant if anything happened to her and the children because of the cutting off of the gas. The defendant summarily ordered her out of the yard and into her house. Mrs. Williamson's husband returned home from making the telephone call. He and his wife decided they would spend the night at her mother's house. The victim then left the house to go back to the neighbor's to make another telephone call. It was while the victim was crossing from the neighbor's house that the shooting occurred. Mrs. Williamson testified that her husband crossed back from the neighbor's porch and was near their parked car when several shots were fired. She saw her husband fall. She ran to him and discovered that he had been shot through the head. She became hysterical and ran toward the neighbor's house. Mrs. Williamson also testified that as she ran more shots were fired. Another State's witness, Sherry Gearheart, testified that while standing in the front yard of her mother's home with a friend she heard the argument between the defendant and the victim's wife. A short time later, she observed the defendant standing on the porch of his house with a gun and saw the victim come off the front porch of the tenant house and proceed toward a neighbor's home. At this point, Sherry Gearheart went into her mother's house. While inside her mother's house she heard shots. She ran to the window and saw the victim fall to the ground near the car. She then went to the front door and saw the defendant on his porch with a gun in his hand. She saw the victim's wife run to the spot where her husband had fallen and then run toward the neighbor's house. She also testified that she saw the defendant shoot at Mrs. Williamson. Sherry's mother, Alma Gearheart, also a State's witness, testified that she saw the victim's wife run to her husband's body and that the defendant fired two shots at Mrs. Williamson as she ran toward the neighbor's house. Further, Daleen Roberts, another woman who had been talking with Sherry Gearheart, testified that she saw the defendant shoot at the victim's wife. None of these witnesses saw any weapon on the victim. After the shooting, the defendant left his porch, got into his truck and drove away. He was later taken into custody by the State Police and gave a confession in which he admitted shooting the victim. At trial, he claimed that during his first argument with the victim, the latter had threatened to kill him if he did not turn the gas on. He stated that in the second confrontation with both the victim and his wife, the victim stated, You're a cripple. I can handle you any way I want to, and I'll tear you into strings. It was at this point that the defendant went onto his porch and obtained his rifle. He stated he kept his rifle on the porch to shoot rats that would come through his yard. The defendant testified that after the second confrontation, the victim and his wife went into the tenant house. The defendant then stated that the victim came back out of the house and proceeded toward the car, which had been measured to be some sixty-three feet from the defendant's porch. The porch was about 8½ feet above ground level. The defendant stated that he saw the victim reach down to pick up something. He thought the victim had dropped a gun. When the victim raised up the defendant stated the victim shot at him. The defendant then shot several times killing the victim. He was cross-examined extensively on this point because in his confession he made no mention of the victim having or firing a gun at him but stated he shot the victim when he saw him pick up a rock. The defendant offered no other fact or witness to corroborate his version of the shooting. The defendant's instructions on self-defense were given to the jury. The defendant does not argue that he was entitled to exercise the right of self-defense as a matter of law. See State v. W.J.B., W.Va., 276 S.E.2d 550 (1981). What he does urge is that the jury's verdict of first degree murder is not warranted on the facts. However, under the standard of appellate review of the facts set in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Starkey, W.Va., 244 S.E.2d 219 (1978), we do not believe the defendant's position has any merit: In a criminal case, a verdict of guilt will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, where the state's evidence is sufficient to convince impartial minds of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. To warrant interference with a verdict of guilt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the court must be convinced that the evidence was manifestly inadequate and that consequent injustice has been done. In Starkey, we discussed in some detail our law regarding the elements of murder and stated: The term `murder' must be defined in conjunction with W.Va. Code, 61-2-1, where the Legislature established the distinction between first and second degree murder. In State v. Stevenson, 147 W.Va. 211, 127 S.E.2d 638 (1968), rev'd on other grounds, Boles v. Stevenson, 379 U.S. 43, 85 S.Ct. 174, 13 L.Ed.2d 109 (1964), this Court noted at common law there were no degrees of murder, and went on to state that under our statute first degree murder requires a deliberate and premeditated killing. It has also been said that the distinctive element in first degree murder is the specific intent to take life. State v. Hertzog, 55 W.Va. 74, 46 S.E. 792 (1904).       This Court has always recognized that malice is an essential element to both murder in the first and second degree. State ex rel. Combs v. Boles, 151 W.Va. 194, 198, 151 S.E.2d 115, 118 (1966), and cases cited therein. 244 S.E.2d at 223. (Footnotes omitted) In speaking of our general murder statute, W.Va. Code, 61-2-1, we held in Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Sims, W.Va., 248 S.E.2d 834 (1978): W.Va. Code, 61-2-1, was not designed primarily to define the substantive elements of the particular types of first degree murder, but rather was enacted to categorize the common law crimes of murder for the purpose of setting degrees of punishment. It is obvious that the specific intent to kill for first degree murder is related to and is a necessary constituent of the elements of premeditation and deliberation such that proof of the latter will also aid in proving the former. State v. Jones, 279 S.E.2d 835, 838-39 (N.C.1981). We discussed at some length in State v. Starkey, supra , the term malice and concluded it is essentially a form of criminal intent. 244 S.E.2d at 223. Thus, in regard to first degree murder, the term malice is often used as a substitute for specific intent to kill or an intentional killing. E.g., State v. Ferguson, W.Va., 270 S.E.2d 166, 170 (1980); State ex rel. Combs v. Boles, 151 W.Va. 194, 198, 151 S.E.2d 115, 118 (1966). It is clear, however, that the intent to kill or malice is a required element of both first and second degree murder but the distinguishing feature for first degree murder is the existence of premeditation and deliberation. [2] Based on the foregoing principles, it is clear that where there has been an unlawful homicide by shooting and the State produces evidence that the homicide was a result of malice or a specific intent to kill and was deliberate and premeditated, this is sufficient to support a conviction for first degree murder. Here, the only conflicting fact was the defendant's statement that he thought the victim had a gun and fired first at him. The State's witnesses testified they saw no gun on the victim. The defendant in his confession after the homicide also made no mention of a gun. Clearly, the jury could find that the victim was without a weapon and at the time he was killed was not making any attack on the defendant. The physical evidence demonstrated the distance between the defendant and the victim at sixty-three feet with the defendant occupying a porch some 8½ feet above the ground. The victim was not advancing on the defendant. Armed as he was with a weapon, the defendant cannot validly maintain that he was placed in fear of great bodily harm or death once the jury disbelieved his story that the victim was armed. Nor does the record support a claim of provocation, since the argument between the victim and the defendant had broken off when the victim and his wife went into the tenant house before the actual shooting. [3] Under the State's evidence, the jury could have properly concluded that the defendant's shooting of the victim was deliberate and premeditated.
The defendant claims that it was reversible error for the trial court to have given State's Instruction No. 3, taken from State v. Clifford, 59 W.Va. 1, 16, 52 S.E. 981, 987 (1906). [5] The specific complaint advanced by the defendant is that the instruction by stating it is only necessary that [the] intention [to kill] should have come into existence for the first time at the time of the killing, contradicts the concept of premeditation, an essential element of the crime of first degree murder. We do not agree with the defendant's analysis of the Clifford instruction. In the preceding section we have discussed the elements of first degree murder in regard to a homicide by shooting as drawn from our prior case law. It can be conceded that the definition as developed from our cases has some degree of redundancy since we utilize the terms malice or intentional killing as well as a deliberate and premeditated killing. The terms deliberate and premeditated have not often been defined in our cases but do carry a certain degree of definitional overlap. [6] This point is made in LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law § 73, at 563 (1972 ed.): To be guilty of this form of first degree murder the defendant must not only intend to kill but in addition he must premeditate the killing and deliberate about it. It is not easy to give a meaningful definition of the words `premeditate' and `deliberate' as they are used in connection with first degree murder. Perhaps the best that can be said of `deliberation' is that it requires a cool mind that is capable of reflection, and of `premeditation' that it requires that the one with the cool mind did in fact reflect, at least for a short period of time before his act of killing. (Footnotes omitted) But, as LaFave & Scott also point out: The intention may be finally formed only as a conclusion of prior premeditation and deliberation. Id. Here, the Clifford instruction refers primarily to the intention to kill not existing for any particular time and arising at the moment of the killing. This means the specific intent to kill and is to be distinguished from the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are the state of mind conveying the characteristics of reflection. The present case illustrates these distinctions. There was an interval of time after the defendant and the victim argued and the victim went into his house and came out again. It was during this interval that the defendant armed himself. This speaks to deliberation and premeditation. Upon the victim's emergence from his house, these elements continued culminating in the specific intent to kill with the firing of the weapon. Defense counsel points to Edwards v. Leverette, W.Va., 258 S.E.2d 436, 438 (1979), where disapproval was voiced generally about this type of instruction. The specific discussion in the case, however, was whether the instruction relieved the State from proving a necessary element of first degree murder. We held it did not. We are also cited the Virginia case of Baker v. Commonwealth, 237 S.E.2d 88 (Va.1977), where in a per curiam opinion, the court concluded that the instruction might be made clearer if the word premeditated was removed in the prefatory clause. We do not believe that this adds any clarity to the instruction since the prefatory clause to constitute a wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing is nothing more than a statement of the elements of first degree murder. The instruction is an intent instruction and could have begun (assuming another instruction had been offered giving the entire definition of first degree murder) with the prefatory statement to constitute first degree murder it is not necessary that the intention to kill should exist, etc. It is possible from a cursory reading of this instruction standing alone to infer that premeditation and deliberation could arise at the moment of the killing and thus arguably erase the distinction between first and second degree murder. [7] When the questioned instruction however is fitted with others in the case, the jury was apprised of the difference. This is the reason for the traditional rubric that instructions should be considered in their entirety. State v. Milam, W.Va., 226 S.E.2d 433 (1976); State v. Slider, 156 W.Va. 653, 196 S.E.2d 85 (1973); State v. Snider, 81 W.Va. 522, 94 S.E. 981 (1918). State's Instruction No. 1 clearly delineated the critical difference between first and second degree murder by stating that murder in the second degree is when one person kills another person unlawfully and maliciously, but not premeditatedly. We decline to reverse on this ground. Defendant's complaint as to State's Instruction No. 2 can be more readily dispatched. State's Instruction No. 2 defined the elements of first degree murder. The instruction also stated and if no extenuating circumstances appear from the evidence, you, the jury, should so find him guilty of murder in the first degree. The specific contention is that this instruction prejudicially singled out first degree murder by not covering all of the other lesser degrees of verdicts the jury might find. State's Instruction No. 1, however, gave to the jury a comprehensive definition of all verdicts the jury could return, i.e., first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter and not guilty. We see no reason why the State could not offer a separate specific instruction covering a particular form of verdict.
Defendant argues that reversible error was committed when the State failed to disclose in advance of trial the ownership of a pistol found several days after the shooting. The gun was found beneath an old car seat under the Williamson's front porch. This point is also raised in the habeas corpus proceeding as an illustration of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant contends that if defense counsel had known that the owner of the gun was a Mr. Carter, he would not have brought out the fact that the gun had been found. The basis for this argument is that the State in rebuttal established by a state policeman that the gun was owned by Mr. Carter and also established on cross-examination of the defendant that Carter was known by the defendant. This enabled the prosecutor to suggest in his closing argument that the defendant arranged to have the gun planted on the victim's property after the shooting in order to bolster his self-defense claim. We have in several of our cases made the distinction, which has been made by the United States Supreme Court, between the prosecutor's constitutionally mandated duty to turn over exculpatory material to the defendant in the absence of any defense discovery motions and the broader requirement imposed by our discovery statute and rules to respond with relevant information. In State v. Brewster, W.Va., 261 S.E.2d 77, 79 (1979), we summarized the matter in this fashion: Much the same thought underlies the distinction drawn by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), between evidence required to be disclosed through formal discovery requests and evidence required to be disclosed regardless of requests under the constitutional rule for producing exculpatory material as set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Cf. State v. Belcher, W.Va., 245 S.E.2d 161 (1978); Annot., 34 A.L.R.3d 16, 38 (1970). See also State v. Grimm, W.Va., 270 S.E.2d 173 (1980); Wilhelm v. Whyte, W.Va., 239 S.E.2d 735 (1977); State v. Cowan, 156 W.Va. 827, 197 S.E.2d 641 (1973); State v. McArdle, 156 W.Va. 409, 194 S.E.2d 174 (1973). Here, the failure of the State to communicate to defense counsel the ownership of the gun found on the defendant's property occupied by Williamson does not constitute exculpatory evidence from a constitutional standpoint. In United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), the Supreme Court announced the standard of evaluating whether the failure to disclose evidence would reach a constitutional dimension such that the prosecutor was required to disclose it in the absence of any request: It necessarily follows that if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been committed. This means that the omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. If there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial. On the other hand, if the verdict is already of questionable validity, additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt. 427 U.S. at 112-13, 96 S.Ct. at 2402, 49 L.Ed.2d at 355. (Footnotes omitted) In State v. McArdle, supra , we stated a similar test in Syllabus Point 4: A prosecution that withholds evidence on the demand of an accused, which, if made available would tend to exculpate him, violates due process of law. In Wilhelm v. Whyte, supra , we spoke to this syllabus point in McArdle by stating that [t]here can be little doubt that the reference [to the prosecutor's failure to disclose evidence] was to the Due Process Clause, Article III, Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution. 239 S.E.2d at 737. Since Agurs the constitutional requirement on the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defendant need not be predicated on a prior request by the defendant. [8] Consequently, we modify Syllabus Point 4 of McArdle in light of Agurs and Wilhelm, supra, to read: A prosecution that withholds evidence which if made available would tend to exculpate an accused by creating a reasonable doubt as to his guilt violates due process of law under Article III, Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution. In the present case, the ownership by a third party of the gun found underneath the porch of the Williamson's residence cannot be deemed an exculpatory fact. The finding of the gun bore on the issue of defendant's claim of self-defense. It was the defendant's position that at the time of the shooting, he thought the victim had a gun. The claim of self-defense was not materially affected by who owned the gun allegedly used by the victim. Even if we assume the defendant was entitled to utilize our nonconstitutional discovery standard (predicated on a prior granted discovery motion) [9] he does not come within this standard. In Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Grimm, W.Va., 270 S.E.2d 173 (1980), we said: When a trial court grants a pre-trial discovery motion requiring the prosecution to disclose evidence in its possession, non-disclosure by the prosecution is fatal to its case where such non-disclosure is prejudicial. The non-disclosure is prejudicial where the defense is surprised on a material issue and where the failure to make the disclosure hampers the preparation and presentation of the defendant's case. See also State v. Cowan, 156 W.Va. 827, 197 S.E.2d 641 (1973). The relevant inquiry under this standard is prejudice to the defendant resulting from either surprise on a material issue or where the nondisclosure hampers the preparation and presentation of the defendant's case. The physical possession of a gun by the victim at the time of the shooting was the material issue insofar as the defendant's claim of self-defense is concerned. Hence, the disclosure of the ownership of the gun did not relate to a material issue of the case. Ownership of the gun by the victim would have been of some corroborative value if the evidence had shown that this was the same gun allegedly used by the victim. No such evidence however existed. We believe furthermore that it is entirely speculative to state that had the defense attorney known of the ownership of the gun, he would have abandoned any reference to the discovery of the gun by the victim's residence. Part of the defendant's claim of self-defense rested on convincing the jury that the victim had a gun at the time of the shooting. The defendant was the only witness who alluded to the victim being in possession of a gun and it is quite conceivable that defense counsel would have introduced evidence on the finding of the gun near the victim's residence to help bolster the defendant's testimony even though he knew of the ownership of the gun. In light of the foregoing discussion, we find no reversible error on the criminal appeal.