State v. Jason C., 20-0560
| Decision Date | 19 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-0560,20-0560 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Jason C., Defendant Below, Petitioner |
(Berkeley County CC-02-2019-F-271)
Petitioner Jason C., by counsel B. Craig Manford, appeals the Circuit Court of Berkeley County's July 2, 2020, orders (1) sentencing him to an aggregate sentence of 115 to 370 years of incarceration for six counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust; six counts of sexual abuse in the first degree; one count of sexual assault in the first degree; and one count of violation of a protection order and (2) denying his motion for a new trial and judgment of acquittal.1 Respondent the State of West Virginia, by counsel Andrea Nease Proper, 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.
On June 25, 2018, Tiffany C., the mother of M.K., notified Cpl. Frederick H. Edwards of the West Virginia State Police that approximately one year prior, her husband/petitioner disclosed to her that M.K. had "dry humped" petitioner while petitioner was sleeping on the couch. Tiffany C. also told Cpl. Edwards that, over the past few years, she had heard petitioner comment to M.K. that "you need to tell your mother or I'm going to." Tiffany C. also advised that she inquired of her husband how many times the "dry humping" occurred, and he claimed it was only once. Tiffany C. further informed Cpl. Edwards that four or five nights prior to her contacting police, petitioner called M.K. at her grandmother's home and told her that she needed to tell her mother everything; M.K.'s grandmother had communicated the same to Tiffany C. As a result, Cpl.Edwards arranged for a forensic interview of M.K., during which she said that she was dry humped by petitioner on multiple occasions but had tried to forget it. M.K. advised that the incidents occurred at night when her mother was not home. She also stated that "humping" is what happens when your clothes are off but "dry humping" occurs when clothes are on. She said that the dry humping always happened on the couch and that the last time it happened was three years prior.
Cpl. Edwards interviewed petitioner twice on the same day. Petitioner advised the officer that the dry humping incidents occurred but were initiated by M.K. and that on some of the occasions he would pretend to be asleep. He told Cpl. Edwards that the incidents occurred in 2014 at the family home. Petitioner also claimed that he had caught M.K. doing the same thing to a sibling, at which time he told her if she ever did that again to do that to petitioner instead. During the second interview, petitioner admitted that M.K. touched his penis under his shorts on one occasion and that he touched her vagina, without penetration, on one occasion. He further disclosed that during one occasion of dry humping, he ejaculated. On June 27, 2018, Cpl. Edwards filed a criminal complaint against petitioner, alleging that in 2014, in Berkeley County, petitioner committed three counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree against a minor between the ages of eleven and twelve. Petitioner was indicted by a grand jury on February 21, 2019, on six counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust and six counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.
On August 19, 2019, Cpl. Edwards was contacted by Tammy P., mother of Tiffany C. and guardian of thirteen-year-old A.M., regarding an allegation of sexual abuse against A.M. by petitioner. Tammy P. explained that A.M. is blind but can distinguish between light and dark. Tammy P. told Cpl. Edwards that A.M. had recently disclosed to her and other family members that petitioner had touched her inside of her underwear on two occasions; when questioned more thoroughly, A.M. stated that petitioner had penetrated her vagina with his finger. Tammy P. told Cpl. Edwards that the abuse occurred when the kids were playing Dungeons and Dragons and the disclosure occurred the day before Tammy P. went to police. According to Tammy P., after everyone else went to bed, petitioner came over to the couch where A.M. was, laid down, and touched her through her underwear.
A.M.'s forensic interview was conducted on August 26, 2019, at which time she said that petitioner touched her approximately eighteen months prior and that it happened on two occasions. During the interview, A.M. said that after playing Dungeons and Dragons and after the others had gone to bed, she was lying on the couch when petitioner came over and sat on the other side of the couch. A.M. fell asleep and woke up with petitioner's hand on her private parts. She reported that when she pushed his hand away, he kept putting it back; A.M. said that petitioner's hand was on the outside of her shorts but that he kept trying to unbutton them. A.M. said she knew it was petitioner because everyone else had gone to bed and she recognized his voice, asserting that she was very good at determining voices. A.M. pinpointed the time frame to April of 2017 because petitioner's biological daughter was at the house visiting for spring break. A.M. said that it happened again shortly before "stuff went down with [M.K.]" and petitioner. She said that she was again sleeping on the couch when petitioner woke her up by lying down next to her. He tried to remove her leggings, but she kept pulling them back up. This continued until he was able to touch her in a sexually inappropriate manner.
On October 14, 2019, the State filed a "Notice of Intent to Seek a Superseding Indictment" and "Motion to Schedule Arraignment Prior to Trial." The superseding indictment was returned against petitioner on October 16, 2019, which included six counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian against M.K.; six counts of sexual abuse in the first degree against M.K.; one count of sexual assault in the first degree against M.K.; two counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian against A.M.; three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree against A.M.; and one count of violation of a protective order.
On February 12, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for severance of the counts related to A.M. from those related to M.K., arguing that he would suffer substantial prejudice if separate trials were not granted. He also argued that in a joint trial his defense would be hampered because petitioner desired to testify in his defense to the allegations related to A.M. but did not necessarily want to testify as to those related to M.K. The State filed a motion in limine regarding "rape shield" evidence of M.K.; petitioner sought to introduce purported evidence that M.K. had acted out sexually toward other children in the household. The circuit court granted the State's motion in limine and set forth its findings regarding that motion. The circuit court denied petitioner's motion to sever based on the factual similarities, similar ages of the victims, same location within the house, both were known to and related by marriage to petitioner, and other similarities.
Petitioner's jury trial began on February 26, 2020. Following the presentation of the State's case-in-chief, petitioner moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State had failed to present evidence of sexual gratification on four of the occasions of dry humping while petitioner was allegedly asleep. In response, the State argued that it had established a prima facie case when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. The circuit court denied petitioner's motion. After petitioner's counsel presented his defense, petitioner renewed his motion for a directed verdict, which was denied by the circuit court.
At the conclusion of a three-day jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of six counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust; six counts of sexual abuse in the first degree; one count of sexual assault in the first degree; and one count of violations of a protection order—the counts related to M.K.. He was, however, acquitted of two counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, or custodian; two counts of first-degree sexual abuse; and one count of first-degree sexual assault. All of the counts for which he was acquitted related to the allegations as to A.M. Pursuant to petitioner's request, each juror was polled individually, and each juror affirmed that he or she agreed with the verdict.
Prior to sentencing, the circuit court ordered the completion of a presentence report to be prepared by the probation officer. On June 22, 2020, the circuit court held petitioner's sentencing hearing, during which the parties indicated that they had received that report and had no objections to the same. Following the submission of sentencing memoranda from both parties and petitioner's request for an alternative sentence of home confinement or probation, the circuit court sentenced petitioner to the following: ten to twenty years for each count of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust; five to twenty-five years for each count of sexual abuse in the first degree; and twenty-five to one hundred years for the count of sexual assault in the first degree. He was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 for the misdemeanor offense of violation of a protective order, in addition to time served. The circuit court...
To continue reading
Request your trial