State v. Greenfield

Decision Date28 September 2016
Docket NumberNo. 15–0535,15–0535
Citation791 S.E.2d 403,237 W.Va. 740
Parties State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Rickie L. Greenfield Jr., Defendant Below, Petitioner
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

B. Craig Manford, Esq., Martinsburg, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner.

Cheryl K. Saville, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent.

LOUGHRY

, Justice:

The petitioner, Rickie L. Greenfield Jr.,1 appeals the May 4, 2015, order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County denying his post-trial motions for a judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, a new trial. He was convicted of first degree murder for killing his wife by striking her multiple times in the head with a hammer. The jury did not recommend mercy. In this appeal of his conviction, the petitioner raises seven assignments of error pertaining to the following trial issues: length of the jury deliberations, limitation of impeachment evidence concerning a witness's prior conviction, allowing the jury to view a witness's videotaped statement, admission of a color photograph of the victim, admission of correspondence the petitioner signed with the nickname “Hammer,” sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and cumulative error. After a thorough review of the record on appeal, the parties' arguments, and the relevant law, we find no error and, accordingly, affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was indicted for first degree murder for the death of his wife, Jill Greenfield, in violation of West Virginia Code § 61–2–1

(2014). The case went to trial in January of 2015, where the State of West Virginia presented the following evidence.

After separating from the petitioner, in August of 2013, Ms. Greenfield continued to live in the former marital residence, an apartment in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The petitioner moved into the home of his girlfriend, Kristin Strong. At some point Ms. Strong told the petitioner's father, Rickie “Rick” Greenfield Sr.,2 that she was concerned about the petitioner. Rick knew the petitioner and Jill could really “push each other's buttons” and that the petitioner had previously threatened to harm or kill Jill, although Rick had not taken his son's threat seriously. Acting on Ms. Strong's concern, Rick spoke with the petitioner and determined that the petitioner was feeling hurt and wanted his wife back. When they spoke on the evening of August 21, 2013, Rick and the petitioner discussed that the petitioner was going to Jill's apartment that night to drop off his young children.3 Concerned about what his son might do, Rick urged the petitioner to remain calm and not bring a gun to the apartment. Ms. Strong confirmed that the petitioner and his children left her home on the night of August 21 for the purpose of taking the children to Jill's apartment.

At 9:47 p.m. that same night, the petitioner telephoned his father and confessed that he had just killed Jill by hitting her in the head with a hammer. The petitioner told his father he had tried to talk to Jill, but he “went crazy” when she said she would “screw” other people and she no longer wanted a relationship with him. Rick Greenfield could hear his grandchildren in the background of the telephone call. Although the petitioner initially told his father he was “running from the law” and was suicidal, he then agreed not to harm himself or the children and to turn himself over to the authorities.

The petitioner sent a text message to his sister, Amanda Kellett, at 9:55 p.m. that night. The message read, “call me 911 emergency.” When Ms. Kellett called him a few minutes later, the petitioner was crying and confessed that he had just killed Jill with a hammer. The petitioner stated he had struck Jill “at least fifty times” and she doesn't have a face” anymore. According to Ms. Kellett's trial testimony, the petitioner said he “snapped” when Jill told him she would “screw anybody [she] want[ed] to in front of our girls.” Ms. Kellett also recounted her knowledge of troubles in the petitioner and Jill's marriage. Although the petitioner and Jill were separated and the petitioner was in a relationship with Ms. Strong, Ms. Kellett explained that the petitioner had “a really hard time” when Jill told him of her relationships with other people. Ms. Kellett testified, “what really made it hard [was] when Jill no longer wanted him.”

Ms. Strong testified that the petitioner and the children returned to her home on the night of August 21st. According to Ms. Strong, the petitioner appeared to be scared and worried, and he told her that Jill had died. Upon being confronted at trial with a written transcript of the videotaped statement she gave to police, Ms. Strong then admitted that the petitioner had also told her that he had argued with his wife and had killed her by beating her in the face with a hammer.

Meanwhile, Rick Greenfield was unsure of whether Jill Greenfield was really dead, as his son had declared over the telephone. Rick and his brother-in-law drove to Jill's apartment, found the door locked, and knocked but received no answer. The brother-in-law called 911 at 10:15 p.m., and the responding police officers broke in the apartment door to discover the crime scene.

Jill Greenfield's deceased body was found lying near the edge of the bed in her bedroom, with her feet on the floor, her pants partly unzipped, and her head covered with a blanket. When the blanket was removed, police observed that she was covered in blood and had severe head trauma

. There was blood splatter in the bedroom, but no signs of a struggle anywhere in the apartment. A weathered ball peen hammer, covered in what was later confirmed to be the victim's blood, was found on the bed near the body.

The victim's next-door neighbors, Kaitlin and Colin Shanahan, testified that on the night of the murder, they left their apartment at 8:30 p.m. and returned at 9:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. They did not hear any signs of an attack, but at approximately 9:15 or 9:30 p.m.4 they were sitting in their living room when they heard the sounds of heavy footsteps and of children descending the wooden staircase shared by their apartment and the Greenfield apartment. The Shanahans recognized these sounds as being made by the Greenfield children and by the petitioner descending the stairs in his work boots.5

At 10:32 p.m. that night, the petitioner called Rick Greenfield and revealed that he was at Ms. Strong's residence. The police immediately went to Ms. Strong's home and arrested the petitioner. When he was taken into custody, the petitioner had blood on his shirt and pants. Subsequent testing by experts at the State Police Laboratory confirmed that this blood belonged to the victim. Moreover, the police found boxes of miscellaneous tools in the petitioner's truck.6

While in a police cruiser being transported to the police station, the petitioner overheard a radio report about the presence of a coroner at his wife's address. He asked Patrolman Scott Shelton whether they had saved” his wife. The officer disclosed that she was deceased. The petitioner then told the officer that he and his wife had been experiencing marital problems, they had argued while inside the apartment, and he had “snapped.”7

Dr. Vernard Adams, the expert pathologist who performed an autopsy on the victim, reported that she had multiple lacerations on her head and face accompanied by fractures of the underlying bones in several places. The doctor determined that seven or eight blows had been inflicted, mostly to the front part of the head. The victim's injuries included an open fracture

over the bridge of her nose that went through the skull and the dura matter of the brain. Dr. Adams testified that “from all of these wounds of the face, the contour of the face was depressed. That is[,] it was pushed in and did not rebound.” The cause of death was determined to be multiple blows inflicted by a small, hard, blunt object, such as a hammer.

After hearing and deliberating on the evidence presented at the January 2015 trial, the jury found the petitioner guilty of first degree murder and did not recommend mercy.8 By order entered on May 4, 2015, the circuit court denied the petitioner's post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

II. Standards of Review

The petitioner appeals the circuit court's order denying his post-trial motions for a new trial or judgment of acquittal. We apply the following standards when reviewing a circuit court's decision to deny a motion for new trial:

In reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a two-pronged deferential standard of review. We review the rulings of the circuit court concerning a new trial and its conclusion as to the existence of reversible error under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.

Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Vance , 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000)

. Furthermore, [t]he Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Juntilla , 227 W.Va. 492, 497, 711 S.E.2d 562, 567 (2011) (citing State v. LaRock , 196 W.Va. 294, 304, 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996) ). Where more particularized standards of review apply to specific assignments of error, they are set forth below. Accordingly, we proceed to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to the reversal of his conviction.

III. Discussion
A. Length of Jury Deliberations

The petitioner contends it was error for the circuit court to have denied his motion for a new trial when the jury returned its verdict after deliberating “only seventy minutes.” He argues that seventy minutes was an insufficient period of time for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Zuccaro, 15-0976
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 26 de abril de 2017
    ...committed the willful, deliberate and premeditated killing of Jason Pratz. See W.Va. Code § 61-2-1 ; State v. Greenfield, 237 W.Va. 773, 786, 791 S.E.2d 403, 416 (2016) (reciting elements of first degree murder); State v. Browning, 199 W.Va. 417, 420, 485 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1997) (same); State v.......
  • State v. Berry
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 23 de maio de 2017
    ...Court may accept any adequate evidence, including circumstantial evidence, as support for a conviction[.]" State v. Greenfield, 237 W.Va. 773, 786, 791 S.E.2d 403, 416 (2016). Indeed, we have observed:Circumstantial evidence ... is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admit......
  • State v. Michael C.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 25 de abril de 2023
    ... ... introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness other than ... the defendant in a criminal trial rests within the sound ... discretion of the trial court.' Syl. Pt. 9, State v ... Davis , 176 W.Va. 454, 345 S.E.2d 549 (1986)." Syl ... Pt. 2, State v. Greenfield , 237 W.Va. 773, 791 ... S.E.2d 403 (2016) ...          3. The ... question of whether or not the evidence of a witness's ... prior conviction is relevant is not a factor in determining ... its admissibility under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 609; ... ...
  • State v. Hicks
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 15 de junho de 2018
    ...extent petitioner seeks to challenge the jury's deliberations, such a claim is not recognizable herein. See Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Greenfield, 237 W.Va. 773, 791 S.E.2d 403 (2016) ("'A jury verdict may not ordinarily be impeached based on matters that occur during the jury's deliberative proc......
  • 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