Opinion ID: 1385179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defect in the Verdict Form

Text: The jury verdict form used in this case provided three options for the jury to choose among: (1) Guilty of Wrongful Removal of Timber  More Than $1,000.00, (2) Guilty of Wrongful Removal of Timber  Less Than $1,000.00, or (3) Not Guilty. The jury selected option number one, thus convicting Mr. Legg of Wrongful Removal of Timber  More Than $1,000.00. From the verdict form, it is impossible to tell whether or not the jury concluded that Mr. Legg was a principal in the first degree or second degree. [6] We have long held that when a defendant is prosecuted on multiple, separate charges, a jury verdict should distinguish between the charges so that the defendant knows the charge upon which he was convicted. E.g., State v. Taft, 143 W.Va. 365, 366, 102 S.E.2d 152, 154 (1958); State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376, 386, 76 S.E.2d 265, 270 (1953). However, we do not agree with Mr. Legg's contention in the instant case that the jury was instructed on two separate felonies, with different elements of proof. Rather, as explained above, one felony charge was at issue, and there were two separate methods of proof upon which Mr. Legg could be convicted of that felony. Therefore it was not necessary to provide separate options on the jury form for two separate charges. The question remains, however, whether or not Mr. Legg was entitled to be informed of which theory the jury relied upon in convicting him. In Syllabus Point 5 of Stuckey v. Trent, a murder case in which the prosecution proceeded upon theories of first degree murder and felony murder, we held that a jury form does not have to distinguish between murder in the first degree and felony murder, as long as the State does not proceed against the defendant upon the underlying felony. 202 W.Va. 498, 505 S.E.2d 417 (1998). If it is not reversible error to fail to distinguish between the two theories of a prosecution's case on a jury verdict form in a first-degree murder trial, then it is difficult to imagine that such failure to distinguish would constitute reversible error in the instant case. Because the punishment for the felony of Wrongful Removal of Timber  More than $1,000 remains the same whether the defendant acted as the principal in the first degree or as the aider and abettor, we do not believe that the verdict form was inadequate. [7] D.