State v. Jenkins

• Decision Date: 21 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–0362.,11–0362.
• Citation: 229 W.Va. 415,729 S.E.2d 250
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia, Respondent v. Henry C. JENKINS, Petitioner.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

229 W.Va. 415

729 S.E.2d 250

STATE of West Virginia, Respondent

v.Henry C. JENKINS, Petitioner.

No. 11–0362.

Supreme Court of Appeals of

West Virginia.

Submitted March 27, 2012.

Decided June 21, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

1. “A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The evidence need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility determinations are for a jury and not an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.” Syllabus Point 3, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).

2. “The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Syllabus Point 1, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).

3. “ ‘The action of a trial court in admitting or excluding evidence in the exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless it appears that such action amounts to an abuse of discretion.’ Syl. pt. 5, Casto v. Martin , 230 S.E.2d 722 (W.Va.1976) citing Syl. pt. 10, State v. Huffman, 141 W.Va. 55, 87 S.E.2d 541 (1955).' Syllabus Point 2, State v. Rector, , 280 S.E.2d 597 (1981).' Syl. pt. 3, State v. Oldaker, , 304 S.E.2d 843 (1983).” Syllabus Point 6, State v. Kopa, 173 W.Va. 43, 311 S.E.2d 412 (1983).

4. “ ‘Double jeopardy prohibits an accused charged with felony murder, as defined by W. Va.Code § 61–2–1 (1977 Replacement Vol.) from being separately tried or punished for both murder and the underlying enumerated felony.’ Syllabus Point 8, State v. Williams, 172 W.Va. 295, 305 S.E.2d 251 (1983).” Syllabus Point 8, State v. Giles, 183 W.Va. 237, 395 S.E.2d 481 (1990).

5. “The granting of a motion to force the State to elect rests within the discretion of the trial court, and such a decision will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Syllabus Point 3, State v. Walker, 188 W.Va. 661, 425 S.E.2d 616 (1992).

6. “The Double Jeopardy Clause in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, provides immunity from further prosecution where a court having jurisdiction has acquitted the accused. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. It also prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.” Syllabus Point 1, Conner v. Griffith, 160 W.Va. 680, 238 S.E.2d 529 (1977).

7. “Under our decisions, the corpus delicti consists in cases of felonious homicide, of two fundamental facts: (1) the death; and (2) the existence of criminal agency as a cause thereof. The former must be proved either by direct testimony or by presumptive evidence of the strongest kind, but the latter may be established by circumstantial evidence or by presumptive reasoning upon the facts and circumstances of the case.” Syllabus Point 6, State v. Beale, 104 W.Va. 617, 141 S.E. 7, 141 S.E. 401 (1927).

8. “The felony-murder statute applies where the initial felony and the homicide are parts of one continuous transaction, and are closely related in point of time, place, and causal connection, as where the killing is done in flight from the scene of the crime to prevent detection or promote escape.” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Wayne, 169 W.Va. 785, 289 S.E.2d 480 (1982).

9. “ ‘The elements which the State is required to prove to obtain a conviction of felony murder are: (1) the commission of, or attempt to commit, one or more of the enumerated felonies; (2) the defendant's participation in such commission or attempt; and (3) the death of the victim as a result of injuries received during the course of such commission or attempt.’ State v. Williams, 172 W.Va. 295, [311,] 305 S.E.2d 251, 267 (1983).” Syllabus Point 5, State v. Mayle, 178 W.Va. 26, 357 S.E.2d 219 (1987).

10. “In order to sustain a conviction for felonious homicide, the corpus delicti is properly proved by sufficient evidence showing that the initial wound caused the death indirectly through a chain of natural causes.” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Durham, 156 W.Va. 509, 195 S.E.2d 144 (1973).

11. “A defendant may be held criminally responsible where he inflicts upon another a wound resulting in death, even though the cause of death is related to the proper treatment of the wound or related to such treatment or effect of a pre-existing physical disability of the victim.” Syllabus Point 3, State v. Durham, 156 W.Va. 509, 195 S.E.2d 144 (1973).

12. “Pursuant to W. Va.Code § 61–2–1 (1991), death resulting from an overdose of a controlled substance as defined in W. Va.Code § 60A–4–401 et seq. and occurring in the commission of or attempt to commit a felony offense of manufacturing or delivering such controlled substance, subjects the manufacturer or deliverer of the controlled substance to the felony murder rule.” Syllabus Point 3, State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W.Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998).

13. “It is a well-established rule of appellate review in this state that a trial court has wide discretion in regard to the admissibility of confessions and ordinarily this discretion will not be disturbed on review.” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467, 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978).

14. “A trial court's decision regarding the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.” Syllabus Point 3, State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467, 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978).

15. “Where a person who has been accused of committing a crime makes a voluntary statement that is inadmissible as evidence in the State's case in chief because the statement was made after the accused had requested a lawyer, the statement may be admissible solely for impeachment purposes when the accused takes the stand at his trial and offers testimony contradicting the prior voluntary statement knowing that such prior voluntary statement is inadmissible as evidence in the State's case in chief.” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Goodmon, 170 W.Va. 123, 290 S.E.2d 260 (1981).

16. “A confession that has been found to be involuntary in the sense that it was not the product of the freewill of the defendant cannot be used by the State for any purpose at trial.” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Goff, 169 W.Va. 778, 289 S.E.2d 473 (1982).

E. Scott Stanton, Esq., Deputy Chief Public Defender, Fayette County Public Defender's Office, Fayetteville, WV, for Petitioner.

Brian D. Parsons, Esq., Fayette County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Fayetteville, WV, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, Henry C. Jenkins, defendant below (hereinafter “Petitioner”), challenges a June 28, 2010, order of the Circuit Court of Fayette County convicting him of “felony murder” and “child neglect resulting in death,” and sentencing him to life with mercy for the felony-murder conviction, and a consecutive sentence of three to fifteen years for “child neglect resulting in death.” Herein, Petitioner alleges the following assignments of error: 1) that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to proceed against him for the separate offenses of felony murder, “death of a child by a parent,” and “child neglect resulting in death;” 2) that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Petitioner caused his son's death beyond a reasonable doubt; 3) that the circuit court erred in suppressing Petitioner's statement only during the State's case in chief; 4) that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to use immaterial and gruesome photographs of the child's autopsy; and 5) that the circuit court erred in permitting the use of certain 404(b) evidence at trial. After thorough review of the petition for appeal, all matters of record and the briefs and argument of counsel, we find no error. We therefore affirm Petitioner's conviction.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 19, 2008, Petitioner's fourteen-year-old son, C.C.J.¹, died at Women and Children's Hospital in Charleston, West Virginia. C.C.J., who suffered from cystic fibrosis, was later determined by autopsy to have two non-prescribed controlled substances, oxycodone and valium, in his blood stream. At the time of his death, C.C.J. resided with his father, Petitioner, in a mobile home in Fayette County, West Virginia. The child's mother, Naomi Griffith, was incarcerated at the time of C.C.J.'s death. Both of C.C.J.'s parents had been frequent abusers of pain prescription medications throughout his life. According to the record, C.C.J. had a life-long struggle with cystic fibrosis and had been in and out of hospitals many times during his childhood combating complications with his illness.

On the evening of November 13, 2008, several persons gathered at Petitioner's home. According to the evidence presented at trial, Holly Burdette arrived at the home around 10:00 p.m. after receiving a phone call from C.C.J. asking for a ride. Burdette was drinking with Marshall Walker and Shaun Stark and asked them to transport C.C.J. and Petitioner. They drove to the home of Josh Settle, a local drug dealer, where Petitioner traded Mr....