State v. Bouie
| Decision Date | 16 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–0639.,14–0639. |
| Citation | 776 S.E.2d 606,235 W.Va. 709 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Darnell Carlton BOUIE, Defendant Below, Petitioner. |
Chad L. Taylor, Esq., Simmerman Law Office, PLLC, Clarksburg, WV, James E. Hawkins, Jr., Esq., Buckhannon, WV, for Petitioner.
James Armstrong, Esq., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Harrison County Prosecuting Attorney's Office Clarksburg, WV, for Respondent.
Darnell Carlton Bouie appeals the circuit court's entry of judgment against him on the jury's verdict, convicting him of the felony murder of Jayar Poindexter and of conspiracy to commit burglary of Poindexter's residence.
Discerning no error in the proceedings below, we affirm.
According to the prosecution's evidence at trial, at about 3:15 a.m. on January 13, 2010, Bouie joined with Ennis Charles Payne to steal money and drugs from Poindexter's Clarksburg apartment. The pair had arrived at the apartment complex with three other men, who waited with the group's two vehicles parked some distance away. As Bouie and Payne prepared to enter a rear bedroom window, they unexpectedly encountered Poindexter, who had left his bed to investigate upon hearing the duo approach. During the confrontation that followed, Payne fired his .25 caliber pistol through the window into Poindexter's chest, killing him. In September 2012, arrest warrants were issued for Bouie and Payne. At the time, Bouie was incarcerated in Butler County, Pennsylvania, in connection with another criminal proceeding, where he remained while awaiting extradition to West Virginia.
On October 25, 2012, the lead investigator of the murder, Sergeant Josh Cox of the Clarksburg Police Department, arrived in Pennsylvania to serve Bouie with the arrest warrant and take him back to West Virginia. Sergeant Cox transported Bouie to the police station for processing, then to the North Central Regional Jail in Doddridge County. On the way to the jail, Sergeant Cox stopped at a gas station to refuel his cruiser. While the cruiser was being refueled, Bouie asked to see a copy of the criminal complaint against him. Sergeant Cox complied, and at trial, he related the conversation that ensued:
Shortly after his arrival at the North Central Regional Jail, Bouie was transferred to the Central Regional Jail in Braxton County. The grand jury subsequently returned a two-count indictment against Bouie and Payne on May 7, 2013, charging each with the felony murder of Poindexter and with conspiracy to commit burglary of Poindexter's residence. Thereafter, the circuit court granted Bouie's motion to sever his trial from that of Payne.
Bouie's jury trial commenced on March 17, 2014, and it continued for five days. Among the trial witnesses was Aaron Carey, an acquaintance of Payne, who testified that mere days after the murder, Payne confided to him that “he had shot somebody in a robbery” to procure money and drugs. The prosecution also produced evidence of Bouie's phone calls from the Central Regional Jail, during which he volunteered:
No fingerprint evidence was discovered at the crime scene. Instead, the investigators found two sets of footprints in the snow beneath Poindexter's bedroom window, one made by boots and the other by sneakers. The prosecution attempted to link the latter set of footprints to the shoes that Bouie appeared to be wearing in surveillance videos taken the night of the murder.
The videos led Sergeant Cox to believe that the shoes were Nike Air Force One sneakers. Upon conducting an internet search, Sergeant Cox found sneakers of that brand for sale on eBay; the offered shoes were of a similar color to those in the video, that is, they were white with blue outsoles. Sergeant Cox purchased the shoes and sent them to the FBI at Quantico, Virginia, together with casts and photos of footwear impressions taken from the snow-covered ground outside Poindexter's apartment, as well as screen captures of the videos in which the shoes were shown. An FBI expert testified at trial that the comparison revealed “areas of similarity” between the exemplar shoes and the crime scene impressions, but that he could not conclude that the impressions had been made by the exemplar brand.
A second FBI expert testified that the video evidence was of insufficient quality to allow her to conclude that Bouie had been wearing the exemplar brand while on camera. The latter expert nonetheless noted, much as her colleague had, “several similarities” between the exemplar shoes and those worn by Bouie. Thereafter, Sergeant Cox testified in agreement with counsel's questioning that, based on his lay observations, he discerned “similarities in coloration and design” between the exemplar and photographed shoes, and “similarities between the sole pattern of the [e]xemplar shoes and the sneaker foot impressions left outside the victim's apartment.”
The jury was charged and the parties presented their closing arguments on March 21, 2014. After deliberating for about two hours, the jury found Bouie guilty on both counts alleged in the indictment. In accordance with the jury's recommendation, the circuit court sentenced Bouie to life with mercy on his conviction of felony murder, and to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from one to five years on the conviction of conspiracy to commit burglary. From the judgment of conviction entered May 19, 2014, Bouie appeals.
In evaluating the admissibility of inculpatory statements given by an accused in police custody, we are “ ‘constitutionally obligated to give plenary, independent, and de novo review to the ultimate question of whether a particular confession is voluntary and whether the lower court applied the correct legal standard in making its determination.’ ” Syl. pt. 2, in part, State v. Marcum, 234 W.Va. 415, 765 S.E.2d 304 (2014) (). A defendant's constitutional rights may also, on occasion, be implicated by the admission of certain evidence against him at trial. Nonetheless, “a trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence, ‘including those affecting constitutional rights, are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.’ ” State v. Kennedy, 229 W.Va. 756, 763, 735 S.E.2d 905, 912 (2012) (quoting State v. Marple, 197 W.Va. 47, 51, 475 S.E.2d 47, 51 (1996) ) (internal citation omitted).
Bouie's statements at the Central Regional Jail are alleged to have been procured in violation of West Virginia Code § 31–20–5e (2002), governing phone calls by prisoners. The issue presents “a question of law or involv[es] an interpretation of a statute,” requiring de novo review. Syl. pt. 1, in part, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).
Finally, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence supporting one or more of a defendant's convictions, our function “is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Syl. pt. 1, in part, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). We may sustain the defendant's challenge to a particular conviction only if we fail to assure ourselves that, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
Within a month following the indictment, on June 4, 2013, the prosecution moved to determine the admissibility of Bouie's statements made to Sergeant Cox in the police cruiser on the way to jail. The circuit court carefully considered the matter, holding its decision in abeyance until shortly before trial, when, on March 12, 2014, it entered a written order granting the prosecution's motion and declaring the statements admissible. Bouie maintains that the circuit court's ruling violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. With respect to the latter contention, Bouie points out that he made the statements while yet under detainer with respect to the Pennsylvania proceeding, in which he was represented by an attorney. Bouie emphasizes that he did not waive counsel's presence prior to giving his inculpatory statements.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches “ ‘at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’ ” State v. Moore, 158 W.Va. 576, 582, 212 S.E.2d 608, 612 (1975) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) ). We have elaborated that “[a]n adversary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bouie v. Ames
...Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial based on Petitioner's claim of insufficiency of evidence. ECF No. 2 at 2; 235 W.Va. at 716 - 723, 776 S.E.2d at 613 - 620. opinion decided June 16, 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment. State v.......
-
State v. Payne
...in the spring of 2014. This Court affirmed Bouie's felony-murder and conspiracy to commit burglary convictions in State v. Bouie, 235 W.Va. 709, 723, 776 S.E.2d 606, 620 (2015).3 West Virginia Code § 61–2–1 provides, in part:Murder by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any......
-
State ex rel. Dechristopher v. Gaujot
...is limited to factual findings as opposed to legal conclusions. Id. at 250, 452 S.E.2d at 53 ; see also Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Bouie , 235 W. Va. 709, 776 S.E.2d 606 (2015) ; Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Marcum , 234 W. Va. 415, 765 S.E.2d 304 (2014) ; Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Jones , 220 W. Va. 214, 640......
-
State v. Dunn
...access to their telephone conversations, and notice must be placed near every telephone that is monitored. See State v. Bouie, 235 W.Va. 709, 719, 776 S.E.2d 606, 616 (2015) (“It is therefore plain that Bouie was presented with actual notice in advance of making the inculpatory statements t......