State v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 11 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 34470.,34470. |
| Citation | 691 S.E.2d 813 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Dallas HUGHES, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
691 S.E.2d 813
STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee,
v.
Dallas HUGHES, Defendant Below, Appellant.
No. 34470.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Submitted January 26, 2010.
Decided February 11, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John J. Mize, Beckley, WV, for Appellant.
Kristen L. Keller, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Beckley, WV, for Appellee.
DAVIS, Chief Justice:
Dallas Hughes (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Hughes") appeals from a resentencing order of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County. The resentencing order imposed the following sentences on Mr. Hughes: life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the crime of first degree murder by use of a firearm; five years imprisonment for the crime of wanton endangerment; one year incarceration for the crime of fleeing from the police; and six months incarceration for the crime of falsely reporting an emergency.1 Here, Mr. Hughes contends that he is entitled to a new trial based upon the following errors: (1) the indictment did not charge him with felony murder, (2) the jury should not have been instructed on both felony murder and premeditated murder, (3) the trial court erred in not striking two jurors for cause, (4)
On June 12, 2004, at around 5:38 a.m., the Raleigh County Operations Center received a 911 emergency call indicating that a woman by the name of Sacha Mitchell had been shot in her home at the Beckley West Apartments in Beckley, West Virginia. The caller identified Mr. Hughes as a person seen leaving Ms. Mitchell's apartment at the time she was shot. It was later determined that Ms. Mitchell was shot once in the face and died at the scene of the crime.2
Based upon information provided during the 911 emergency call, the local police were able to locate Mr. Hughes driving through downtown Beckley in a blue Cadillac. Although at least three police cars followed Mr. Hughes with blue lights flashing and sirens on, he did not immediately stop. During the time that the police chased Mr. Hughes through the streets of downtown Beckley, he threw a bag out of his car. The bag was later retrieved by a police officer and was found to contain $9,600.00 in cash.
Mr. Hughes eventually stopped his vehicle. However, as several officers approached Mr. Hughes' car, he sped off at a high rate of speed. The police lost track of Mr. Hughes. Shortly after Mr. Hughes fled from the police, he abandoned his car and walked into the Beckley Police Department.3 Mr. Hughes entered the police headquarters crying and complaining of being shot.
Although Mr. Hughes claimed that he had been shot, it was determined that he was not injured in any manner. While at police headquarters, Mr. Hughes was given Miranda warnings. After Mr. Hughes waived his Miranda rights, he voluntarily gave a statement to the police. In Mr. Hughes' statement, he gave three different versions of what happened at Ms. Mitchell's apartment.
In his initial statement to the police, Mr. Hughes indicated that he had been dating Ms. Mitchell but that the relationship ended. Mr. Hughes stated that he went to Ms. Mitchell's apartment around 3:00 a.m. on June 12, 2004. Mr. Hughes indicated that, during this initial visit, he did not enter Ms. Mitchell's apartment. Mr. Hughes stated that he and Ms. Mitchell argued outside of her apartment. Mr. Hughes stated further that he believed another man was in the apartment, but that he did not see him. After the argument ended, Mr. Hughes stated that Ms. Mitchell went into the apartment and tossed items out of her window that had belonged to Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes stated that he left the apartment, but returned because Ms. Mitchell had called him on his cellular phone. After Mr. Hughes returned to the apartment, he pushed the door open, but did not go inside the apartment. Mr. Hughes stated that he saw a man in the apartment and that the man had a gun. Mr. Hughes alleged that a "tussle" occurred and the man "almost shot him".4 After the gun went off, Mr. Hughes left the apartment.
After Mr. Hughes gave his initial statement to the police, he was informed that Ms. Mitchell was dead and that neighbors saw him leaving her apartment shortly after a gun shot was heard. The police also told Mr. Hughes that the neighbors saw him throw an object in a wooded area near the apartment building. As a result of the information given by the police, Mr. Hughes changed his statement. Mr. Hughes stated that the man in Ms. Mitchell's apartment attacked him and pulled out a gun. Mr. Hughes stated further
After Mr. Hughes gave his second version of what happened at Ms. Mitchell's apartment, the police informed him several times that neighbors saw only him at the apartment. Mr. Hughes persisted in stating that another man was in the apartment. However, he eventually changed his story a third time and gave the following account of what happened:
After the first argument she threw my clothes out the window. After the second argument I pushed her down to the stairs, and when she got back up she had the pistol in her hand—she had the pistol in her hand. And I got to laughing at her and got to playing . . . I tried to smack it out of her hand and it wouldn't work so I grabbed her by the wrist and laid her down on the step and she tried to get up, I pushed her back down, I don't know if I was pushing her I just remember the gun going off, so I don't know what to do.
Subsequent to Mr. Hughes' third statement to the police, he was indicted on September 14, 2004, for first degree murder by use of a firearm, wanton endangerment, fleeing from the police, and falsely reporting an emergency. The guilt phase of the case was tried before a jury on January 4, 2005.5 The jury returned a verdict on January 14, 2005, finding Mr. Hughes guilty of all charges. After the jury returned its verdict, the State and Mr. Hughes entered into an agreement. The agreement was approved by the trial court. Mr. Hughes would be sentenced to life with the possibility of parole on the murder conviction. In exchange for this agreement, the State would be permitted to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole if Mr. Hughes appealed his conviction and was granted a new trial. Subsequent to this agreement, the trial court sentenced Mr. Hughes to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on the conviction for first degree murder by use of a firearm; five years imprisonment on the conviction for wanton endangerment; one year incarceration on the conviction for fleeing from the police; and six months incarceration on the conviction for falsely reporting an emergency.
Mr. Hughes filed posttrial motions, which included a motion for new trial, on April 8, 2005. The trial court denied the motions on August 11, 2006. For reasons that are not clear from the record, Mr. Hughes was resentenced for appeal purposes at least seven times. The last resentencing order was entered on November 12, 2008. Mr. Hughes now appeals from the last resentencing order.6
In this case, we are called upon to review assignments of error that have specific standards of review that will be set out under each assignment of error. As a general matter, however, we have held that in reviewing a trial court's denial of a posttrial motion for new trial,
the ruling of a trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is entitled to great respect and weight, the trial court's ruling will be reversed on appeal when it is clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence.
Syl. pt. 4, in part, Sanders v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 159 W.Va. 621, 225 S.E.2d 218 (1976). More specifically, we held in Syllabus point 3 of State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000), that,
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.
With these standards in view, we examine the issues presented in this appeal.
A. An Indictment Need Not Expressly Charge Felony Murder
As previously set forth, Mr. Hughes asserts several assignment of error. This opinion will consider each one separately. The first issue raised by Mr. Hughes concerns the State's prosecution of him for both premeditated murder and felony murder.7 Mr. Hughes contends that the indictment returned against him did not expressly charge him with felony murder. Therefore, the State could not prosecute him for felony murder. We disagree.
As an initial matter, "we have recognized that de novo review is applied when the sufficiency of an indictment is questioned." State v. Corra, 223 W.Va. 573, 578, 678 S.E.2d 306, 311 (2009) (citation omitted). Further, "an indictment need only meet minimal constitutional standards, and the sufficiency of an indictment is determined by practical rather than technical considerations." Syl. pt. 2, in part, State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lambert
...regarding felony murder.Satterfield, 193 W. Va. at 513, 457 S.E.2d at 450. The decision in Bragg also was applied in State v. Hughes, 225 W. Va. 218, 691 S.E.2d 813 (2010). We said the following in Hughes:In the instant proceeding, the indictment charged only that Mr. Hughes "did unlawfully......
-
State v. Davidson
...in part by cautioning the parties "not to make expressions of any kind during the playing of the tape"); State v. Hughes , 225 W.Va. 218, 691 S.E.2d 813, 826–27 (2010) (surveying cases and finding it is "universally accepted" that a trial court may allow the jury, while deliberating, to ret......
-
People v. Cavitt
...court may allow the jury, during its deliberations, to review recorded evidence in open court (quoting State v. Hughes , 225 W.Va. 218, 691 S.E.2d 813, 826-27 (2010) ) and that, "consistent with the analysis in Lewis and Rouse ," it does not constitute an abuse of discretion).¶ 142 Turning ......
-
State v. Sanders
...which could have prevented the erroneous decision reached below.4 The circuit court was referring to State v. Hughes , 225 W. Va. 218, 691 S.E.2d 813 (2010), in which the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. In Hughes , the Court was focused upon the issue of whether an indictmen......