State v. Fritts
Decision Date | 29 October 2021 |
Docket Number | 20-0937 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Sherri Lynn Fritts, Defendant Below, Petitioner |
(Jefferson County CC-19-2020-F-23)
Petitioner Sherri Ann Fritts, by counsel James T. Kratovil, appeals the Circuit Court of Jefferson County's orders granting the State's motion in limine to admit evidence of drug activity, granting the State's request to allow expert testimony from a witness, and denying petitioner's motions for judgment of acquittal or new trial. Respondent the State of West Virginia, by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Scott E. Johnson, filed a response to which petitioner submitted a reply.
This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Petitioner was indicted for delivery of a controlled substance resulting in the death of Angelina Costello and for failure to render aid to Ms. Costello. According to petitioner's statement to police, petitioner got into an argument with her ex-husband so petitioner contacted Ms. Costello to pick her up. Ms. Costello picked petitioner up and drove her to Ms Costello's home, where they stayed for approximately forty-five minutes. When petitioner wanted to return home, Ms. Costello was not feeling well so Ms. Costello reportedly allowed petitioner to borrow her car. Petitioner claimed that she left Ms. Costello's home through the front door, locking it behind her. Petitioner then drove to two stores before returning to her ex-husband's home. Sometime later, petitioner left Ms. Costello's car at Harding's service station.
According to Trooper First Class Matthew Morgan, during the evening of December 9, 2018, he received a call to conduct a wellness check at Ms. Costello's home. When he arrived, he discovered that the doors were locked and there was no sign that anyone was home, as there was no car outside and no sign of distress. Also on that date, Ms. Costello's son, David Austin Pulse, had been unable to contact his mother so he drove from Kentucky to his mother's home, arriving at approximately 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. the following morning. He reportedly picked a lock to enter the locked home, where he found Ms. Costello dead in her bed. Mr. Pulse's girlfriend contacted law enforcement. Although Mr. Pulse denied the presence of any drug paraphernalia or cleaning anything, Jefferson County Medical Examiner Gary Viands, who is also a paramedic/firefighter, responded to the scene and observed the body before it was transported to Charleston for an autopsy. He did not observe any track marks or fentanyl patches on Ms. Costello's body. Based on his experience, he recognized the physical symptoms of a drug overdose, including fluid draining from Ms. Costello's nose and mouth.
Petitioner was arrested related to Ms. Costello's death. The State filed a motion in limine seeking to offer evidence from the trial of Richard Brooks regarding an alleged illegal drug buy between petitioner and an individual known as "Cuz." Petitioner's counsel told the circuit court that he thought Mr. Brooks's testimony was that he did not sell drugs to petitioner and never saw anyone in his home sell drugs to petitioner. The circuit court responded that petitioner's counsel was "really addressing a slightly different issue which is factually what happened versus getting into with the witness at least some effort to buy drugs." It continued by stating that the State is "asking to do that as intrinsic evidence versus having to go through a Rule 404(b) hearing on other crimes, wrongs or acts." The circuit court found that Mr. Brooks could not testify that petitioner came for the purpose of purchasing drugs from Cuz but could lay a foundation that he was not a social acquaintance with petitioner and that he let Cuz sell drugs from his home. While the State argued that it was intrinsic evidence, petitioner's counsel argued that it was 404(b) evidence and that the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value. The circuit court took the issue under advisement.
The circuit court ultimately found that it was "satisfied that Sergeant Holz is an expert in the area of GPS data mapping and he will be allowed to so testify."
However, the circuit court precluded the State from making any reference during its opening statement to Mr. Brooks's mere inference that because petitioner allegedly purchased drugs at Mr. Brooks's residence on other dates, she must have purchased fentanyl there on December 8th.
To continue reading
Request your trial