Court Opinion

ID: 9389530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 19:10:40.993019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.253289
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                April 25, 2023
No. 21-0467 – State v. Michael C.                                                 released at 3:00 p.m.
                                                                              EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Armstead, Justice, concurring:                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA

              I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that “the [circuit] court’s

exclusion of the Rule 609 evidence under the facts and circumstances of this case was

reversible error and the petitioner is entitled to a new trial.” The issue herein was whether

Petitioner should have been permitted to impeach T.E. with her prior felony under Rule

609 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. As noted by syllabus point four of the majority

opinion:

                     Where a party seeks to admit evidence of a witness’s
              prior conviction pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Evidence
              609, the sole issue to be determined by the circuit court is
              whether the probative value of the impeachment evidence is
              substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the
              factors enumerated in West Virginia Rule of Evidence 403:
              unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
              undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
              evidence.

              The circuit court erred by failing to make a specific finding of whether T.E.’s

prior felony met one of the Rule 403 factors: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative

evidence. Because the circuit court did not make such a finding, I agree with the majority

opinion that Petitioner’s conviction should be reversed.

              However, I disagree with the majority opinion’s statement that “this Court,

having reviewed the appendix record including the trial transcript, can find no factual basis

that would support any such legal determinations [that T.E.’s prior felony met one of the

                                             1
Rule 403 factors].” The issue in this case is whether the circuit court conducted a proper

Rule 609 analysis. It is clear that it did not. Therefore, it is entirely unnecessary for the

majority opinion to speculate on what the circuit court could have found if it had conducted

a proper Rule 609 analysis. Further, I believe that T.E.’s prior felony conviction could

potentially meet one of the Rule 403 factors that would prevent it from coming in for

impeachment purposes. It is possible that admitting T.E.’s prior felony for child neglect in

Virginia could confuse the issues or mislead the jury. The circuit court, however, did not

conduct the required analysis or make the necessary findings for us to conduct a proper

appellate review of the issue.

              Based on these facts, I concur with the majority opinion’s ruling but disagree

with the majority opinion to the extent it concluded, in dicta, that T.E.’s prior felony

conviction could not meet any of the Rule 403 factors.

                                             2