State v. Jones
Citation | 640 S.E.2d 564 |
Decision Date | 29 November 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 33072.,33072. |
Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Roger Eric JONES, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "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." Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467, 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978).
2. Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247, 452 S.E.2d 50 (1994).
3. Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996).
4. "Whether an extrajudicial inculpatory statement is voluntary or the result of coercive police activity is a legal question to be determined from a review of the totality of the circumstances." Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Bradshaw, 193 W.Va. 519, 457 S.E.2d 456 (1995).
5. "Misrepresentations made to a defendant or other deceptive practices by police officers will not necessarily invalidate a confession unless they are shown to have affected its voluntariness or reliability." Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Worley, 179 W.Va. 403, 369 S.E.2d 706 (1988).
Teresa C. Monk, Fifth Circuit Public Defender Corporation, Spencer, for the Appellant.
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Robert D. Goldberg, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, for the Appellee.
This case involves the direct criminal appeal of Roger Eric Jones (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") from the order entered on July 7, 2005, in the Circuit Court of Roane County whereby he was resentenced for appeal purposes for his jury conviction of the offense of felony murder.1 Although Appellant maintained several trial errors in his petition for appeal, this Court accepted the petition to address a single assignment of error: whether the trial court was correct in denying Appellant's motion to suppress out-of-court statements made after he was arrested, while en route and at the Grantsville State Police Detachment for processing. After duly considering the arguments as briefed, the certified record and applicable law, we find no error and affirm the decision of the circuit court.
This case involves the murder of an elderly Roane County man, Oral "Sam" Jett. To help understand the alleged error, a few prefatory facts need to be mentioned about a separate yet factually similar case involving the murder of another elderly Roane County man occurring around the same time period. In late December 2002, John Moorehead died from being struck in the head by a blunt object. The body was also burned because Mr. Moorehead's trailer was set on fire after he was beaten. Although a State Police investigation of the Moorehead killing was underway at the time the murder in the present case occurred, no charges had been filed or arrest warrants issued in the Moorehead case.
On January 4, 2003, the body of Oral Jett, the victim in the present case, was discovered on a secluded road in Roane County, West Virginia. There were visible bruises and lacerations on the victim's head and face and there was evidence of a struggle both inside and outside the victim's nearby car. Based upon a tip received in an anonymous phone call, police interviewed several people having ties to Appellant. Information from the interviews eventually led Roane County Sheriff Todd Cole to file a criminal complaint in magistrate court naming Appellant as the perpetrator of the Jett murder. Based upon the facts set forth in the complaint, the magistrate issued an arrest warrant on January 8, 2003, which states: "[T]his court has found probable cause to believe that the defendant, Roger Eric Jones, ... `did feloniously, willfully, maliciously, deliberately and unlawfully slay, kill, and murder Oral W. Jett.'" This same recitation of the crime charged appears on the criminal complaint underlying the issuance of the arrest warrant.
According to the State, Sheriff Cole and State Police Trooper Dale Fluharty2 executed the arrest warrant by going to the home of Appellant in Calhoun County, West Virginia, at approximately 2:00 a.m. on January 8, 2003. It is undisputed that Trooper Fluharty advised Appellant of his Miranda rights at the time of the arrest and that Appellant waived his rights. After the arrest, the law enforcement officers transported Appellant to the Calhoun County State Police Detachment in Grantsville, West Virginia.3 During the transport, Trooper Fluharty began a discussion with Appellant about the Moorehead murder. After Appellant made an oral statement denying any involvement with the Moorehead murder, Sheriff Cole interrogated Appellant about the Jett case. The record reflects that the questioning about the Jett murder commenced when the trio was close to arriving at the police barracks. As a result, the officers and Appellant remained in the parked police vehicle several minutes after their arrival at the police barracks in order to conclude the Jett murder interrogation. Once inside the police station, Trooper Fluharty again advised Appellant of his Miranda rights and Appellant completed a written form waiving his rights. The waiver form indicated that Appellant was under arrest for murder, but did not specify a murder victim. In the questioning which followed, Trooper Fluharty first interviewed Appellant about the Moorehead murder and reduced Appellant's oral statement denying involvement in the crime to writing for Appellant's signature. Sheriff Cole next interviewed Appellant about the Jett murder and likewise reduced oral statements to writing which Appellant signed. In Appellant's statement about the Jett case, he confessed to stealing from the victim and hitting the victim several times with a rock.
The statement was admitted into evidence during the jury trial. Appellant testified at the trial, stating that he and Mr. Jett were drug runners. He admitted to being with Mr. Jett when he was murdered and claimed that two drug dealers were responsible for killing Mr. Jett. Appellant went on to explain that the out-of-court statement he made to law enforcement regarding the murder contained lies because one of the murderers threatened to harm Appellant and his family if he revealed their involvement in the crime.
Appellant was found guilty of felony murder4 by the jury who, after subsequent deliberation, did not recommend mercy in sentencing. By sentencing order entered September 20, 2004, Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The trial court resentenced Appellant for purposes of appeal by order entered July 7, 2005. This Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Blevins
...wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.’ State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467, 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978).” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Jones, 220 W.Va. 214, 640 S.E.2d 564 (2006). 11. “When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most......
-
State ex rel. Dechristopher v. Gaujot
..., 235 W. Va. 709, 776 S.E.2d 606 (2015) ; Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Marcum , 234 W. Va. 415, 765 S.E.2d 304 (2014) ; Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Jones , 220 W. Va. 214, 640 S.E.2d 564 (2006). Although this reformulation wasn't new in any real sense – this Court has always applied a de novo standard of ......
- State v. Leland P., 18-0923
-
State v. Lansdowne
... ... In reviewing the trial court's ruling ... on petitioner's motion to suppress, we are mindful that ... we must "construe all facts in the light most favorable ... to the State, as it was the prevailing party below." ... Syl. Pt. 3, in part, State v. Jones , 220 W.Va. 214, ... 640 S.E.2d 564 (2006) ... We have ... held that, when the State expresses its intent to use a ... defendant's prior inculpatory statements against him at ... trial, "[t]he burden is on the State to prove by a ... preponderance of ... ...