State v. Bowling
Decision Date | 11 October 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 11–1674.,11–1674. |
Citation | State v. Bowling, 232 W. Va. 529, 753 S.E.2d 27 (W. Va. 2013) |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Christopher Wayne BOWLING, Defendant Below, Petitioner. |
Oct. 11, 2013.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1.Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Herald Mail Co. v. Hamilton, 165 W.Va. 103, 267 S.E.2d 544(1980).
2.Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Herald Mail Co. v. Hamilton, 165 W.Va. 103, 267 S.E.2d 544(1980).
3.Syl. pt. 3, State v. Sutherland, 231 W.Va. 410, 745 S.E.2d 448(2013).
4.Syl. pt. 2, State v. Doonan,220 W.Va. 8, 640 S.E.2d 71(2006).
5.“ ‘Jury instructions on possible guilty verdicts must only include those crimes for which substantial evidence has been presented upon which a jury might justifiably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”Syl. pt. 1, in part, State v. Leonard,217 W.Va. 603, 619 S.E.2d 116(2005) (quoting syl. pt. 5, State v. Demastus,165 W.Va. 572, 270 S.E.2d 649(1980).
6.“Under the Confrontation Clause contained within the Sixth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionandSection 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution, a testimonial statement is, generally, a statement that is made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.”Syl. pt. 8, State v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366, 633 S.E.2d 311(2006).
7.Syl. pt. 2, State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516(1994).
8.“To the extent that any of our prior cases could be read to allow a defendant to invoke his Miranda rights outside the context of custodial interrogation, the decisions are no longer of precedential value.”Syl. pt. 3, State v. Bradshaw, 193 W.Va. 519, 457 S.E.2d 456(1995).
Richard W. Weston, Esq., Weston Law Office, Huntington, WV, G. Todd Houck, Esq., Mullens, WV, for Petitioner.
Kristen Keller, Esq., Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney, Beckley, WV, for Respondent.
This case is before the Court on appeal by the petitioner, Christopher Bowling(“Mr. Bowling”), of the November 10, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County convicting Mr. Bowling of first degree murder by use of a firearm of his wife, Tresa Bowling(“Ms. Bowling”).He did not receive a recommendation of mercy.In this appeal, Mr. Bowling raises seven assignments of error related to pretrial hearing procedure, impaneling the jury, the exclusion of evidence, and witness testimony.The State asserts that no error was committed below.
After a thorough review of the record presented for consideration, the briefs, the legal authorities cited, and the arguments of Mr. Bowling and the State, we find that while the circuit court erred by admitting certain testimony as detailed herein, the errors are harmless and do not warrant reversal of this case.Therefore, we affirm Mr. Bowling's conviction.
The petitioner, Christopher “Chris”Wayne Bowling, shot and killed his wife, Tresa Bowling, on the evening of January 31, 2010, in Daniels, West Virginia.The couple had attended a funeral together earlier that day, and afterward they spent time drinking with friends.Sometime later, Ms. Bowling left in the couple's vehicle to pick up her two children to take them home.Mr. Bowling rode home with his friend, Phillip Jones(“Mr. Jones”) at approximately 10:40 p.m., and the two men sat in Mr. Jones' vehicle in the driveway talking for approximately 20 minutes.Mr. Jones left, and Mr. Bowling entered the home.
Mr. Bowling claimed that after entering the house, he retrieved a soda from the garage, and then he joined his wife who had been asleep on the couch.While she was lying on the couch, he sat down on the couch with her in the area of her hip.As he sat down, he removed the handgun he routinely kept in his back pocket, a Kel–Tec Model P–3AT.Upon taking the gun from his pocket, he noticed that the gun's slide was out of battery.1According to Mr. Bowling's version of events, while he attempted to right the slide, the gun fired unexpectedly, shooting Ms. Bowling in the head.He avers that he did not realize he was pointing the fully loaded gun at his wife's head—located no more than a couple of feet from the muzzle of the weapon—when the gun discharged.
At 11:35 p.m., the Raleigh County Emergency Operations Center(“EOC”) received a 911 call from the Bowling residence.The caller disconnected the phone call before speaking, prompting EOC to immediately call back.Mr. Bowling answered EOC's call and informed them that he had accidentally shot his wife.EOC instructed Mr. Bowling to place pressure on the wound with a towel to slow the bleeding.EOC also dispatched police and rescue services to the Bowlings' home.During the call, Mr. Bowling requested that the operator dispatch specific police officers he knew personally.
When police arrived at the Bowlings' home, they found Ms. Bowling alive but bleeding profusely from the head wound and suffering from labored breathing.Police witnessed no indications that Mr. Bowling had taken any actions to slow his wife's bleeding.While the police assisted Ms. Bowling and processed the scene, Mr. Bowling was handcuffed and placed in the back of one of the police cars present.At that time he was not placed under arrest.Ms. Bowling was transported via ambulance to a local hospital.Mr. Bowling's mother arrived to care for the two children.
About an hour after being dispatched to the Bowling residence, the police drove Mr. Bowling to the police station where he was questioned about the shooting.Although he was not under arrest at this point, Mr. Bowling was read his Miranda rights,2 which he waived.Meanwhile, despite the doctors' efforts to save her life, Ms. Bowling died of her wound at the hospital.At no time during the questioning did Mr. Bowling inquire as to the wellbeing of his wife or the two children.After the police questioning ended in the early hours of February 1, 2010, Mr. Bowling left the police station with a friend.The police arrested Mr. Bowling on February 2, 2010, for the murder of Ms. Bowling.
Pretrial hearings were held from April 26, 2011, to April 28, 2011, to evaluate the testimony of numerous witnesses that the parties intended to introduce at trial.Trial commenced on June 21, 2011.The State called more than twenty witnesses to testify at trial.The first of the State's witnesses was Ms. Bowling's oldest child, ten-year-old M.L.,3 who was present in the house at the time of the shooting.The child testified that on the night of the shooting, directly before the shooting...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Joseph E. Jackson & W. Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Belcher
... ... 162, 291 S.E.2d 477 (1982). 5. Judicial decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia are laws of this State. 6. The preservation of an individual's “right ... to receive benefits or compensation to which he or she would otherwise be ... ...
-
State v. Boyd
... ... The State contends that the fingerprint records were authenticated under Rule 901(b)(7) and Rule 902(1) & (4) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. We review a trial court's ruling admitting evidence for abuse of discretion. See Syl. pt. 4, State v. Bowling , 232 W.Va. 529, 753 S.E.2d 27 (2013). In order to authenticate a document under Rule 901(b)(7), there must be evidence that: (A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or (B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are ... ...
-
State v. McKinley
... ... No material change was made in the 2014 amendment with respect to the specific provisions of Rule 404 that are considered in this opinion. 7 Mr. McKinley cites, without discussion, to the decision in State v. Bowling, 232 W.Va. 529, 753 S.E.2d 27 (2013), as authority for holding that the domestic violence evidence was too remote in time to be intrinsic. Bowling does not stand for the proposition that other bad acts conduct which occurred two months before the charged offense is too remote to be intrinsic ... ...
-
State v. Spinks
... ... appropriate in order to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context or the "res gestae" "). (Citations omitted). State v. Bowling , 232 W. Va. 529, 547, 753 S.E.2d 27, 45 (2013) (quoting LaRock , 196 W. Va. at 312 n.29, 470 S.E.2d at 631 n.29 ). As the circuit court properly determined, in the six months leading up to her death, Elizabeth's relationship with Petitioner was "marked by a pattern of domestic violence, marital ... ...