State v. Farley
| Citation | 797 S.E.2d 573 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-1068,15-1068 |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Johnnie Ray FARLEY, Defendant Below, Petitioner |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
John Earl (Jay) Williams Jr., Esq., Raeann Osborne, Esq., Princeton, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner
Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, David A. Stackpole, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent
The petitioner, Johnnie Ray Farley, appeals the October 13, 2015,1 order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County denying his motion for a new trial subsequent to his jury conviction for murder in the first degree. The jury did not recommend mercy. The petitioner alleges the circuit court committed reversible error by denying his motion to suppress his October 3, 2014, confession; by denying his motions pertaining to forensic samples collected by the medical examiner; by admitting evidence that he contends should have been excluded by West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b) ; and by denying his motion to bifurcate the trial into guilt and mercy phases. After a thorough review of the record on appeal, the parties' arguments, and the relevant law, we find no reversible error and affirm.
The petitioner confessed that on September 25, 2014, he drove his wife, Lynette Farley, to uninhabited, rural property he owns in Mercer County (referred to as his "farm"). In his vehicle, the petitioner brought a shovel, a mattock, and a concealed shotgun. Shortly after their arrival, the petitioner retrieved the shotgun and shot Mrs. Farley in the chest. After watching his wife die, the petitioner removed all of her clothing, dragged her body down a hillside, dug a shallow grave using his shovel and mattock, and then buried her.
The petitioner shoveled dirt containing the victim's blood into the woods, and threw the empty shell casing into some bushes. When he was finished cleaning up the crime scene, he left the farm and returned to his home in Raleigh County. The petitioner put the shovel and mattock in a storage area at his house, and he hid the shotgun inside a neighbor's burned-out building. He disposed of his wife's purse and bloody clothes by placing them in the trash. In an effort to divert attention away from himself, the petitioner used his wife's cellular telephone to send text messages purporting to be from Mrs. Farley to himself and to Mrs. Farley's daughter. Later, the petitioner threw her cellular telephone into a lake.
On September 29, 2014, the petitioner went to the Beckley Detachment of the West Virginia State Police (sometimes referred to herein as the "police station") to report that his wife was a missing person. At the request of the troopers who were investigating his missing person report, the petitioner returned to the detachment on September 30 and October 2, 2014, to give audio-recorded statements. The petitioner denied any knowledge of his wife's whereabouts and denied harming her. He admitted that his wife had left him several times since January and, during one of those times, she had moved in with another man, Alexander Penn, for thirty days. He told police that he was worried because his wife had not contacted him during her current absence. The petitioner said the last time he saw his wife was on September 25th, when he drove her to the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant in Beckley and then took her back to their home. The petitioner claimed that after leaving his wife at home, he drove to his farm alone.
The troopers' subsequent investigation into the missing person report revealed some inconsistencies between the petitioner's story and the evidence. The petitioner said that he and his wife left McDonald's and returned home, but the restaurant's video surveillance footage showed the petitioner's truck heading away from their home and toward the farm. Police also obtained records from the victim's cellular telephone company showing that her telephone had "pinged" a tower in the area of the farm on September 25th. Finally, credit card information and other video surveillance footage showed that the petitioner used the victim's credit card to purchase gasoline on his way home from the farm on September 25th.
During the proceedings below, Trooper S.G. Milam and Sergeant Robert Richards testified that on October 3, 2014, they went to the petitioner's home to inquire whether he would provide a third statement to follow-up on his missing person report. The petitioner agreed and accepted the offer of a ride to the police station in order to save money on gasoline. The petitioner was not arrested or handcuffed. At the beginning of this audio-recorded interview, which began at 11:54 a.m., Trooper Milam and Sergeant Richards reviewed an "Interview & Miranda Rights Form" with the petitioner. They advised the petitioner that he was free to leave at any time and was not under arrest:
The petitioner initialed the portion of the form indicating that he was not under arrest. Next, Trooper Milam went over the portion of the waiver form advising the petitioner of his Miranda rights:
The petitioner signed the waiver and the officers began taking his third statement.
For several minutes during this interview, the petitioner once again denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, his wife's disappearance. However, after the troopers pointed to inconsistencies in his story, the petitioner admitted that he killed his wife and had "meant to" do it. In a detailed confession, he revealed how he intentionally shot his wife and buried her body at the farm. He also told the officers where to find his shotgun and digging tools, and he repeatedly offered to take the troopers to the location where the body was buried. The petitioner indicated that he killed Mrs. Farley because of her relationship with another man. After the confession, the officers again confirmed that the petitioner understood his Miranda rights; the petitioner explained he was confessing in order to relieve his conscience:
The petitioner indicated that a four-wheel drive vehicle would be necessary to travel to the location where the body was buried. At 1:09 p.m. the interview was halted while a four-wheel drive police vehicle was obtained, search warrants were secured for the petitioner's farm and residence, and the petitioner was given a meal. Sergeant Richards and another trooper then took the petitioner to the farm to locate the body. The audio recording of the petitioner's interview was resumed at 2:01 p.m. from inside the police vehicle during the drive to the farm.
On the way to the crime scene, Sergeant Richards once again reminded the petitioner that he had waived his Miranda rights. The petitioner concurred, stating ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lemons, 19-1024
...second, he or she must be interrogated.' State v. Honaker, 193 W. Va. 51, 60, 454 S.E.2d 96, 105 (1994)." State v. Farley, 238 W. Va. 596, 606-07, 797 S.E.2d 573, 583-84 (2017). Miranda defined custodial interrogation as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has ......
-
State v. Carson, 17-0951
...warnings are required: first, the person must be in custody, and, second, he or she must be interrogated." State v. Farley, 238 W.Va. 596, 607, 797 S.E.2d 573, 584 (2017) (citing State v. Honaker, 193 W.Va. 51, 60, 454 S.E.2d 96, 105 (1994)). "Custodial interrogation" occurs when law enforc......
-
State v. Fleece
...warnings are required: first, the person must be in custody, and, second, he or she must be interrogated." State v. Farley, 238 W.Va. 596, 607, 797 S.E.2d 573, 584 (2017), citing State v. Honaker, 193 W.Va. 51, 60, 454 S.E.2d 96, 105 (1994). "Custodial interrogation" occurs when law enforce......
-
State v. Hager
......1, State v. Deem, 243 W.Va. 671, 849 S.E.2d 918. (2020). "In determining the voluntariness of a. confession, the trial court must assess the totality of all. the surrounding circumstances. No one factor is. determinative." Syl. Pt. 7, in part, State v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247, 452 S.E.2d 50 (1994). "Misrepresentations made to a defendant or other. deceptive practices by police officers will not necessarily. invalidate a confession unless they are shown to have. affected its voluntariness or reliability." Syl. Pt. 6,. State v. ......