Court Opinion

ID: 9575758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:16:46.472464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:58.719187
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
My disagreement with the majority lies in two areas: first, the defendant’s separate conviction for first degree sexual intrusion, and second, the use of the husband’s prior bad acts against the defendant wife when she was not a party to them.
I agree that the defendant was guilty of being an accessory to the first degree sexual assault committed by the boy’s father. The majority correctly states that “the defendant’s action not only in preparing the child for the father’s intrusion, but also in remaining in the room, observing and giving tacit approval to the sexual assault facilitated and encouraged the father, demonstrated a shared intent in the enterprise, and were sufficient to make her culpable.” (Majority Op., p. 457.)
I.
However, I do not agree that her conviction of first degree sexual assault for the very act that led to her conviction as an accessory, i.e., preparing the victim for the father’s sexual assault by placing vaseline in his anus, was proper. This preparatory act involved only several seconds and was immediately followed by the father’s sexual assault. Obviously, her act as an accessory was a predicated step and linked her to the father’s crime. This dual participation should not under the facts of this case give rise to her separate conviction for her preparatory act.
In the past, we have recognized that a sexual event may be deemed only one offense where preparatory acts lead to the *460consummation of a sexual assault. In State v. Reed, 166 W.Va. 558, 276 S.E.2d 313 (1981), the defendant had made an unlawful contact with the victim’s vagina and then had forcible sexual intercourse with her. We recognized in Reed that our sexual offense statute, W.Va.Code, 61-8B-1 (1986), et seq., contains a variety of different sexual offenses and that “[s]ome sections of the article, however, are obviously lesser offenses included within greater crimes created by other sections of the article.” 166 W.Va. at 567, 276 S.E.2d at 319.
We found in Reed that the evidence “indicated but one continuing sexual offense transpiring over the course of approximately fifteen minutes and culminating in sexual intercourse[.]” 166 W.Va. at 568, 276 S.E.2d at 320. We came to the conclusion that the unlawful sexual conduct conviction was improper under double jeopardy principles:
“It would appear to the court that unlawful sexual intercourse could not possibly occur without a certain amount of unlawful sexual contact and it seems unreasonable to us that the Legislature contemplated the division of one act of rape into its component elements for the purposes of punishment.” 166 W.Va. at 569, 276 S.E.2d at 320.
More recently in State v. Davis, 180 W.Va. 357, 376 S.E.2d 563 (1988), the victim had been sexually assaulted when she visited the defendant’s family home to obtain laundry that she had left there earlier in the evening. The defendant forced his attentions on the victim and ultimately dragged her to a bedroom. Prior to engaging in forcible vaginal intercourse, he made her touch his penis. This latter act resulted in an indictment for first degree sexual abuse under W.Va.Code, 61-8B-7 (1984). The forcible sexual intercourse resulted in a second degree sexual assault indictment. The defendant was found guilty on both charges.
In Davis we relied on the Reed case and summarized its holding “that where the evidence shows only one continuing sexual offense culminating in a single act of sexual intercourse, conviction and punishment of the accused for unlawful sexual behavior entirely ancillary to such sexual intercourse violates double jeopardy.” 180 W.Va. at 361, 376 S.E.2d at 567. We also outlined in Davis several factors that should be considered in determining whether an act of unlawful sexual behavior constituted one offense or multiple offenses. These “includ[e] the nature of the acts, the interval of time between them and the place or places at which they are committed!;.]” 180 W.Va. 361, 376 S.E.2d at 567. We concluded that the unlawful touching giving rise to the first degree sexual abuse violated double jeopardy in view of its close proximity to the sexual intercourse.
I believe that Reed and Davis dictate that the defendant’s convictions for the unlawful sexual intrusion by inserting her finger covered with vaseline was an event ancillary to, yet instrumental in her conviction as an accessory to the husband’s act which followed within a few seconds. As a consequence, I believe the majority is wrong in refusing to apply double jeopardy principles to find that only one offense had occurred.
II.
The majority’s discussion of the prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence attempts to gloss over the critical point. The defendant does not argue that the State could not show the father’s act of anal intercourse to which the defendant was an accessory. What the defendant does object to is the trial court’s permitting the State to elicit testimony from the victim that his father had had anal intercourse with him on fourteen or fifteen different occasions when the defendant was not present.
The majority begins its attempt to rationalize this error by setting up a false premise that proof of these prior bad acts on the part of the father was necessary to show that the father did commit the act of anal intercourse which occurred when the defendant was present. Yet, the defendant did not dispute the State’s evidence that the father had committed this act.
*461The majority fails to understand that pri- or bad acts covered by Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, which is similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence, are not to be utilized to prove the defendant’s guilt, i.e., that he acted in conformity with the prior acts.1
Thus, the question that the majority decides to frame and answer is wrong for two reasons. First, there was no evidentiary dispute on the father’s committing the act of anal intercourse. Second, even if there were, his prior acts could not be used to prove that fact.
We explained the reason behind Rule 404(b) in State v. Harris, 166 W.Va. 72, 76, 272 S.E.2d 471, 474 (1980):
“The purpose of the rule excluding evidence in a criminal prosecution of collateral offenses is to prevent a conviction for one crime by the use of evidence tending to show that the accused engaged in other legally unconnected criminal acts[.]”2
Furthermore, as we have indicated in State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974), such collateral crime evidence is highly prejudicial and can result in a jury convicting the defendant on past misdeeds rather than the facts of the present case. See also State v. Johnson, 179 W.Va. 619, 371 S.E.2d 340 (1988).3 This point was made by the United States Supreme Court in Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1502, 99 L.Ed.2d 771, 783 (1988), in its discussion of Federal Rule 404(b). However, unlike the majority, Huddleston recognized the safeguards that surround the use of 404(b) evidence:
“We share petitioner’s concern that unduly prejudicial evidence might be introduced under Rule 404(b).... We think, however, that the protection against such unfair prejudice emanates not from a requirement of a preliminary finding by the trial court, but rather from four other sources: first, from the requirement of Rule 404(b) that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose; second, from the relevancy requirement of Rule 402— as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, from the assessment the trial court must make under Rule 403 to determine whether the probative value of the similar acts evidence is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice ...; and fourth, from Federal Rule of Evidence 105, which provides that the trial court shall, upon request, instruct the jury that the similar acts evidence is to be considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted.” (Citations omitted.)
The majority observes in Note 13 that Rule 404(b) is not involved because it deals with prior bad acts of the accused and here the prior bad acts were not committed by the accused, but involved only her husband. This is the ultimate legal sophistry, as the only logical use of this collateral evidence was to prejudice the jury against the defendant for her husband’s prior acts against the victim. Even the majority acknowledged this prejudice, but brushes it aside by concluding that the collateral bad act evidence was limited.
The final paradox is that the defendant has been sentenced to two fifteen to twen*462ty-five year sentences on two first degree sexual assault convictions arising from one act. The father, who had a thirty-four count indictment returned against him for his sexual assaults on the same victim, was able to plea bargain to two counts and receive consecutive sentences of five to ten years. The majority’s refusal to follow our double jeopardy principles in sexual assault cases compounds this injustice.

. Rule 404(b) provides:
“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident."

. Prior to the adoption of Rule 404 of the W.Va. Rules of Evidence in 1985, we had essentially the same common-law evidentiary rule as indicated by Syllabus Point 11 of State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974).

.One of the most forceful summaries of the reasons behind Rule 404 is found in 2 J. Wein-stein and M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence, ¶ 404(04] at p. 404-28-29 (1985):
“Central to the Anglo-American system of criminal law is the concept that the accused must be protected against forcible inculpation — either through his words or proof of his past misdeeds_ A second ... which is accepted by all American jurisdictions — is the exclusionary rule embodied in Rule 404; it renders inadmissible, as part of the prosecution’s evidence in chief, character evidence offered solely to show the accused’s propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged.” (Footnotes omitted.)