Opinion ID: 1328340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of prior charges

Text: The defendant's first argument is that the trial court committed error in denying his pretrial motion to preclude witnesses from giving testimony that he had prior charges pending against him at the time Mr. Moran was killed. We note at the outset that [r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court's sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317, 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983). See also, Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Farmer, 185 W.Va. 232, 406 S.E.2d 458 (1991) (per curiam). In other words, the defendant has a tall leap to make in order to have this Court disturb an evidentiary admissibility ruling. The rule applicable to the issue raised by the defendant is Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. [2] This Court observed in State v. Nelson, 189 W.Va. 778, 784, 434 S.E.2d 697, 703 (1993), that Rule 404(b) was an `inclusive rule in which all relevant evidence involving other crimes or acts is admitted at trial unless the sole purpose for the admission is to show criminal disposition.' Quoting State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641, 647, 398 S.E.2d 123, 129 (1990). More recently we provided further guidance on Rule 404(b) evidence. In Syllabus Point 1 of State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994), we held: When offering evidence under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the prosecution is required to identify the specific purpose for which the evidence is being offered and the jury must be instructed to limit its consideration of the evidence to only that purpose. It is not sufficient for the prosecution or the trial court merely to cite or mention the litany of possible uses listed in Rule 404(b). The specific and precise purpose for which the evidence is offered must clearly be shown from the record and that purpose alone must be told to the jury in the trial court's instruction. We stated further in Syllabus Point 2 of McGinnis: 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. McGinnis instructs us that six steps should be engaged in by a trial court in making a Rule 404(b) evidence ruling: (1) a hearing must be held outside the presence of the jury; (2) the State must identify a specific purpose for which the evidence will be used; (3) the trial court must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or conduct occurred and that the defendant committed the same; (4) the trial court must determine that the evidence is relevant; (5) the trial court must perform the Rule 403 balancing test; and (6) the trial court should instruct the jury on the narrow purpose of the evidence. The defendant contends that McGinnis was not complied with during his trial, in that the trial court failed to perform the balancing test requirement and failed to make a preponderance of the evidence finding. During the pretrial hearing on the defendant's motion to preclude evidence of prior pending charges, the following exchange between counsel and the trial court occurred: [PROSECUTOR]: Theas the Court is probably aware from past proceedings in this matter, thethe charges pending against Mr.Mr. Phelps at the time Mr. Moran was murdered form thepart of the State's case as it relates to motive. The evidence in this case is going to be that at the time that Mr. Moran was lured to his death, that Mr.Mr. Phelps was a fugitive from justice on certain charges that had been brought against him. The police, at the time of Mr. Moran's death, were actively seeking Mr. Phelps and had warrants for his arrest. The evidence in this case indicates that that was the motiveor one of the prime motives for Mr. Phelps wanting out of the state of West Virginia. And, althoughand thatthat charge against him relates to the Elizabeth Milam case wherewhich is the other indictment in this case thatthatwhereby it is alleged that he took this young lady to ato this home where Mr. Moran was ultimately murderedtook this young lady to that home, did unspeakable atrocities to her body and then released her at some point, and that he was seeking to evade the police and toto leave the state of West Virginia, to keep from facing those charges. Now, I certainly realize the obligation on the State to set a tone of fairness toward this defendant, and I don't want to try the Elizabeth Milam case. Although it would be very prejudicial to thisto this defendant, I realize that that prejudicial effect greatly outweighs the probative value of that case. But, nevertheless, I think it is important to show motive for this defendant, to show that he was wanted in connection with that case, without going into actual facts and circumstances of that case, which THE COURT: Simply that there were pending in Fayette County, felony charges for this defendant. [PROSECUTOR]: That's correct. And he was being actively sought. I think that Deputy Burke and others are going to testify thatthat onthat they had made several attempts to try to locate Mr. Phelps, either here in Fayette County or in Raleigh County in connection with this warrant, and had been unsuccessful. [DEFENSE]: That's exactly the type of evidence I'm trying to exclude from this trial. THE COURT: Well, I think the State is entitled to make an effort to try to show motive in regard to the theft of the car and the murder of Moran, and I would allow the State to present evidence that there was, at the time of these alleged incidents, pending in Fayette County one or more felony warrants against Phelps, but I'm not going to let them get into all theas the prosecutor describes them, unspeakable details, whatever they might be. I certainly wouldn't permit him to do that, but it's sufficient for them to show and to say simply thatby competent evidence that those charges were pending. As an initial matter, we take note of the fact that the State sought to establish as the motive in this case that the defendant murdered Mr. Moran for the purpose of taking his car to flee arrest for the crimes of sexual assault, malicious wounding, and kidnapping. [3] Next, the State takes the position that the trial court did in fact perform a balancing test, based, in part, on its agreement with statements by the prosecutor. Additionally, the State argues the trial court balanced the propriety of allowing testimony regarding the underlying facts of the prior charges as opposed to merely allowing testimony that the defendant was actively being sought by authorities for other felony charges and concluded that the former was too prejudicial but the probative value of the latter was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. We agree with the State's position. It is clear to us that the trial court, perhaps not in an ideal manner, complied with the balancing requirement of McGinnis. The State also contends that a preponderance of the evidence finding is not a required finding under Rule 404(b) when outstanding warrants are the issue for the jury to consider in establishing motive. In support of its position, the State cites State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 577 (Tenn.1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 417, 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994), wherein the Tennessee Supreme Court held: [T]he defendant argues that this proof [of warrants] should not have been admitted because the prior crimes were not established by `clear and convincing evidence' under the guidelines of State v. Parton, 694 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn.1985). Strictly speaking, the evidence of which Defendant complains is not `other crimes evidence' as discussed in Parton. The relevant fact was that the charges were pending, and exposed the Defendant, who knew of them, to possible prosecution and punishment regardless of their validity. Proof establishing the charges' truthfulness might have been relevant to increase the strength of the State's theory that avoiding prosecution and conviction was the Defendant's motive but was unnecessary to establish the admissibility of the outstanding warrants. We express no opinion on the merits of the position taken by the court in Smith. We pause briefly to point out that at issue in Smith was the standard of clear and convincing evidence and the admissibility of outstanding warrants. In the instant case, the matter at issue is the preponderance of the evidence standard and evidence that charges were pending against the defendant, not the introduction of the actual outstanding warrants. The evidence proffered by the State at the pretrial hearing, and the evidence that was given at the trial, was testimony by witnesses that the defendant was being sought in connection with pending charges. A review of the record in this case indicates the defendant did not challenge, during the pretrial hearing, the assertion that authorities were looking to arrest him prior to Mr. Moran's death. In fact, the evidence shows the defendant conceded this issue and was merely attempting to prevent introduction of this uncontested fact. The record also informs us that the defendant did not challenge at the pretrial hearing the allegation that he was evading arrest by authorities prior to Mr. Moran's murder. We believe that based upon all the arguments at the pretrial hearing, there was a sufficient basis for the trial court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the crimes of kidnapping, sexual assault, and malicious wounding occurred and that the defendant committed the same.