State v. Boyd

Citation796 S.E.2d 207
Decision Date19 January 2017
Docket Number No. 15-0894,No. 15-0878,15-0878
Parties STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Rashaun R. BOYD, Defendant Below, Petitioner State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent, v. Christopher R. Wyche, Defendant Below, Petitioner.
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia

Jason D. Parmer, Public Defender Services, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for the Petitioner, Rashaun R. Boyd

Kimberley D. Crockett, Falling Waters, West Virginia, Attorney for the Petitioner, Christopher R. Wyche

Cheryl K. Saville, Berkeley County Assistant, Prosecuting Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Attorney for the Respondent

Davis, Justice:

This opinion involves two consolidated criminal appeals from final orders entered by the Circuit Court of Berkeley County. The petitioners in this matter were prosecuted in a joint trial. In Case No. 15-0878, the petitioner, Rashaun R. Boyd ("Mr. Boyd"), was convicted of attempted murder,1 wanton endangerment2 and possession of a firearm.3 In this appeal, Mr. Boyd contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and that this Court's standard of review set out in Syllabus point 3 of State v. Guthrie , 194 W.Va. 657, 663, 461 S.E.2d 163, 169 (1995), should be overruled. In Case No. 15-0894, the petitioner, Christopher R. Wyche ("Mr. Wyche"), was convicted of voluntary manslaughter,4 wanton endangerment5 and possession of a firearm.6 In this appeal, Mr. Wyche contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, (2) his trial should have been severed, (3) the State impermissibly struck a juror, (4) evidence of gunshot residue should have been excluded, (5) the State disclosed certain evidence late, (6) a testifying police officer was permitted to sit at the State's table, (7) he was not permitted to ask certain questions about an investigating officer, (8) evidence of a dashcam video was improperly admitted, (9) the State made impermissible comments during closing argument, and (10) fingerprint records were improperly admitted. After carefully reviewing the briefs, the arguments of the parties, the legal authority cited, and the record presented for consideration, we affirm the final judgments in these consolidated appeals.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The events leading to the prosecutions in this case began during the early morning hours of September 16, 2012, in the parking lot of a nightclub called Brickhouse Bar, in Martinsburg, West Virginia.7 At that time, the victims in this case, Antoine Stokes and Samson Edmond, left the nightclub and were walking toward their car when Mr. Edmond complimented a passing woman about her visible tattoos.8 The woman, Sierra Frisbee, smiled and continued walking with her friend, Tamara Burnett, toward a Cadillac.9

The petitioners were standing near the Cadillac.10 The Cadillac belonged to Mr. Boyd.

The record indicates that after Mr. Boyd gave Ms. Burnett the car keys and told her to drive, he yelled profanity at Mr. Edmond because of his comment to Ms. Frisbee about her tattoos. Mr. Boyd rushed toward Mr. Edmond and punched him. The two men started to fight. Mr. Stokes joined in the fight and struck Mr. Boyd. During the fight, Mr. Stokes noticed Mr. Wyche move away from the Cadillac, but lost sight of him. After two gunshots were fired, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Edmond retreated from the fight. As the two men ran away, more gunshots were fired. Mr. Edmond yelled out that he was hit. Mr. Stokes dragged Mr. Edmond behind a vehicle before running for safety behind the nightclub.

After the shooting stopped, the petitioners jumped into the backseat of the Cadillac, and Ms. Burnett drove away. Mr. Stokes went to the aid of Mr. Edmond and dialed 911 on his cell phone. When the police arrived, Mr. Stokes provided a description of the petitioners and the car they drove off in. Mr. Edmond was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead from a single bullet that entered the left side of his neck and severed two arteries as it existed through his shoulder.

Ms. Burnett drove into Maryland. Based upon information circulated by West Virginia law enforcement authorities, a Maryland State Police officer spotted the Cadillac driven by Ms. Burnett and turned on his siren and lights. Mr. Boyd told Ms. Burnett not to stop, but she pulled over and stopped the car. As Ms. Burnett got out of the car, Mr. Boyd jumped into the front seat of the car and drove off. A police pursuit ensued. Eventually the police were able to capture the petitioners after the Cadillac wrecked on the side of the road.

In January 2014, the petitioners were indicted jointly for first degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. A jury trial was held in January 2015. The petitioners were tried together. Mr. Boyd did not put on a case-in-chief. Mr. Wyche called one witness during his case-in-chief, an expert on gunshot residue. The jury convicted Mr. Boyd of attempted murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. Mr. Wyche was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm.11 Both petitioners subsequently were convicted on recidivist charges, which resulted in an additional five years being added to their sentences. This appeal followed the denial of post-trial motions.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

We will dispense with our usual standard of review section because each of the assignments of error has its own review criteria.

III.DISCUSSION

The petitioners have assigned ten errors herein. We will address each issue in turn.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Both petitioners have argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdicts against them. Insofar as the evidence presented to sustain the convictions for both petitioners was essentially the same, we will not provide a separate discussion for each petitioner on this issue.

Our cases have made clear that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is a weighty burden to overcome. In Syllabus points 1 and 3 of State v. Guthrie , 194 W.Va. 657, 663, 461 S.E.2d 163, 169 (1995), we said the following:

1. The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction 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. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, 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.
3. A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The evidence need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility determinations are for a jury and not an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.[12]

(Footnote added). With these review principles in mind, we examine the evidence presented.

As previously noted, Mr. Boyd did not call any witnesses and Mr. Wyche called only one witness, an expert on gunshot residue. In this proceeding, Mr. Boyd contends that there was no evidence that he possessed a gun, and no gun was ever found; therefore, his convictions for attempted murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm could not be sustained.13 He also argues that the gunshot residue found on his hands could have come from any number of sources, including "handcuffs, being in a police car, a holding cell or a processing area at the jail, or just being near the assailant that shot Edmond." Mr. Boyd also contends that he fled from the Maryland police because he had drugs in his car, not because of any guilt involving the shooting at the nightclub.

Mr. Wyche argues there was no evidence that he possessed a gun, and no gun was ever found; therefore, his convictions for voluntary manslaughter, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm could not be sustained. He also argues that the gunshot residue found on his hands could have come from any number of sources, including "being in the vicinity of the gun when it was fired ..., or from any of the law enforcement contact they had that evening-handcuffs, officer gloves, officer flashlights, officer gun belts, the police cruiser, or the cells wherein they were detained until their release, or any myriad location that may have been exposed to firearms."

Both petitioners also argue that the police failed to follow up on DNA found in vomit at the crime scene, which was identified as belonging to a person named Roy Winston, who had a criminal record. They also contend that the police failed to follow up on evidence that a violent felon named Ronald Maurice Oliver was implicated in a shooting in Martinsburg and that he drove a green Lincoln, "similar" to the Cadillac driven by Mr. Boyd.

We are not persuaded by the petitioners' arguments that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions. To begin, the surviving victim, Mr. Stokes, identified the petitioners in court as the persons who got into a fight with him and Mr. Edmond. Mr. Stokes testified that, when the fight started, Mr. Wyche was near the Cadillac but moved away from it, and he lost sight of him. As the fight progressed, Mr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Robertson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2018
    ...Davis, 288 Va. 223, 230, 764 S.E.2d 265 (2014) ; Seattle v. Erickson, 188 Wash. 2d 721, 732, 398 P.3d 1124 (2017) ; State v. Boyd, 238 W. Va. 420, 434, 796 S.E.2d 207 (2017) ; State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶¶ 27-32, 262 Wis.2d 747, 664 N.W.2d 607 ; Roberts v. State, 2018 WY 23, ¶ 13, 411 P.3d......
  • State v. Gibbs
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 9, 2017
    ...sever the trials of jointly indicted defendants. We recently emphasized a trial court's discretion in this regard. In State v. Boyd , ––– W.Va. ––––, 796 S.E.2d 207 (2017),29 we held that "[t]his Court will not reverse a denial of a motion to sever properly joined defendants unless the [pet......
  • West Virginia v. Benny W., 18-0349
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2019
    ...Evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Syllabus point 12, State v. Boyd, 238 W. Va. 420, 796 S.E.2d 207 (2017). 2. Under Rule 901(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, social media text messages may be authenticated in numerous ways incl......
  • State v. Benny W.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2019
    ...standards. Consequently, we will set out the standard of review for each issue as it is addressed below. See State v. Boyd , 238 W. Va. 420, 428, 796 S.E.2d 207, 215 (2017) ("We will dispense with our usual standard of review section because each of the assignments of error has its own revi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT