State v. Deskins
Decision Date | 06 April 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 18529,18529 |
Citation | 181 W.Va. 112,380 S.E.2d 676 |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. David DESKINS. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Randle, 179 W.Va. 242, 366 S.E.2d 750 (1988).
2. Syllabus Point 3, State v. Brown, 177 W.Va. 633, 355 S.E.2d 614 (1987).
3. Syllabus Point 5, State v. Beckett, 172 W.Va. 817, 310 S.E.2d 883 (1983).
4. Syllabus Point 2, State v. Dunn, 162 W.Va. 63, 246 S.E.2d 245 (1978).
5. Syllabus Point 6, State v. Payne, 167 W.Va. 252, 280 S.E.2d 72 (1981).
6. Syllabus Point 2, State v. Grimm, 165 W.Va. 547, 270 S.E.2d 173 (1980).
7. Syllabus Point 3, State v. Pennington, 179 W.Va. 139, 365 S.E.2d 803 (1987).
8. "An instruction to the jury is proper if it is a correct statement of the law and if sufficient evidence has been offered at trial to support it." Syllabus Point 8, State v. Hall, 171 W.Va. 212, 298 S.E.2d 246 (1982).
9. Syllabus Point 4, Jenrett v. Smith, 173 W.Va. 325, 315 S.E.2d 583 (1983).
10. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Starkey, 161 W.Va. 517, 244 S.E.2d 219 (1978).
11. "Circumstantial evidence will not support a guilty verdict, unless the fact of guilt is proved to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; and circumstances which create only a suspicion of guilt but do not prove the actual commission of the crime charged, are not sufficient to sustain a conviction." Syllabus Point 2, State v. Dobbs, 163 W.Va. 630, 259 S.E.2d 829 (1979).
J.C. Powell and Dennis Lewis, Hardman and Powell, Parkersburg, for David Deskins.
Harry G. Deitzler, Pros. Atty. Wood County, Parkersburg, for the State.
Donald Deskins appeals from a jury verdict in the Circuit Court of Wood County finding him guilty of the murder of Donald Quinby and sentencing him to the State Penitentiary for life with a recommendation of mercy. Mr. Deskins made several confessions to the police; two of which were used during cross-examination to impeach his testimony. Among his assignments of error, Mr. Deskins argues his statements, made after he had requested the assistance of counsel, should have been suppressed for all purposes. We find no merit in his assignments of error and affirm his conviction.
Donald Quinby was shot and killed on February 27, 1985 in a secluded area outside Parkersburg, West Virginia. Mr. Deskins and Michael E. Cadwallader were connected to the murder by certain circumstantial evidence. 1 Before February 27 1985, both had been seen with the victim; on February 27, 1985, both had purchased a shotgun, the murder weapon. Two empty pop cans, one with Mr. Deskins's fingerprints, were found at the murder scene. Later on February 27, 1985, Mr. Deskins used the victim's credit card to purchase gas for the victim's car outside Huntington, West Virginia. After February 27, 1985, Mr. Deskins invited some of his friends to join him and Mr. Cadwallader on a vacation trip to Florida using the victim's car. Mr. Deskins continued to use the victim's car and credit cards on the Florida trip.
In Florida, Mr. Deskins and Mr. Cadwallader separated and Mr. Deskins remained in the Daytona Beach area until June 30, 1985, when he was arrested on unrelated charges. After his arrest and before his return to West Virginia, Mr. Deskins made three statements to the police without the presence of counsel. The first confession, made on June 30, 1985, was suppressed for all uses because the trial court ruled it involuntary. The second confession, the result of police initiated questioning, was made on July 2, 1985 after Mr. Deskins requested assistance of counsel at his arraignment on July 1, 1985 and when his "waiver sheet" also indicated his desire for counsel. The trial court held that the second confession was admissible only to cross-examine or impeach. The third confession, made on July 19, 1985, although held admissible by the court, was used only for impeachment purposes.
Mr. Deskins contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights when he admitted his second and third confessions for the limited purpose of impeachment. Neither statement was admitted into evidence in the State's case-in-chief. Mr. Deskins, testifying in his own defense, mentioned both statements briefly on direct examination. Mr. Deskins testified that although part of one statement was untrue, the rest of the statements were substantially accurate. In his own defense, Mr. Deskins contended that Mr. Cadwallader, acting alone and without his knowledge or consent, shot and killed Mr. Quinby and then threatened him if he did not follow Mr. Cadwallader's instructions. Mr. Deskins's credibility was a major consideration during the trial and the prosecutor used both statements to impeach his credibility.
On appeal Mr. Deskins argues that since both statements were taken in violation of his rights under the fifth and sixth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the confessions should have been suppressed for all purposes including impeachment.
In Syllabus Point 1, State v. Randle, 179 W.Va. 242, 366 S.E.2d 750 (1988) we, again, reiterated that a voluntary confession can be used for impeachment purposes.
"Where a person who has been accused of committing a crime makes a voluntary statement that is inadmissible as evidence in the State's case in chief because the statement was made after the accused had requested a lawyer, the statement may be admissible solely for impeachment purposes when the accused takes the stand at his trial and offers testimony contradicting the prior voluntary statement knowing that such prior voluntary statement is inadmissible as evidence in the State's case in chief." Syllabus Point 4, State v. Goodmon, 170 W.Va. 123, 290 S.E.2d 260 (1981)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hanson
...of immunity pursuant to this provision was applicable only to witnesses called to testify on behalf of the State. State v. Deskins, 181 W.Va. 112, 380 S.E.2d 676 (1989). In State v. Haverty, 165 W.Va. 164, 267 S.E.2d 727 (1980), however, we expressly recognized that defense witnesses could ......
-
State v. Plumley
...court must be convinced that the evidence was manifestly inadequate and that consequent injustice has been done. See State v. Deskins, 181 W.Va. 112, 380 S.E.2d 676 (1989); State v. Masters, 179 W.Va. 752, 373 S.E.2d 173 (1988); State v. Perdue, 179 W.Va. 719, 372 S.E.2d 636 (1988); State v......
-
State v. Gibson
...Co., W.Va. , 312 S.E.2d 738 (1983).' Syllabus Point 4, Jenrett v. Smith, W.Va. , 315 S.E.2d 583 (1983)." Syl.Pt. 9, State v. Deskins, 181 W.Va. 112, 380 S.E.2d 676 (1989). 6. " 'A witness may be cross-examined regarding bias, prejudice or expected favor or any other fact which might affect ......
-
State v. Gonzales
...the defense in the scope and nature of its cross-examination, thus depriving him of the right to confront the witness. In State v. Deskins, 380 S.E.2d 676 (W.Va.1989), testimony from an earlier trial of a codefendant was found not to be admissible because the motive to develop testimony as ......