State v. Keesecker
Decision Date | 25 April 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 33377.,33377. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. Mindy KEESECKER, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Syl. Pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996).
2. Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000).
3. "Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. Grob v. Blair, 158 W.Va. 647, 214 S.E.2d 330 (1975).
4. "Four factors are taken into account in determining whether improper prosecutorial comment is so damaging as to require reversal: (1) the degree to which the prosecutor's remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) absent the remarks, the strength of competent proof introduced to establish the guilt of the accused; and (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters." Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 456 S.E.2d 469 (1995).
5. "It is prejudicial error in a criminal case for the prosecutor to make statements in final argument amounting to a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify." Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Noe, 160 W.Va. 10, 230 S.E.2d 826 (1976), overruled on other grounds by State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).
6. "Remarks made by the State's attorney in closing argument which make specific reference to the defendant's failure to testify, constitute reversible error and defendant is entitled to a new trial." Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Green, 163 W.Va. 681, 260 S.E.2d 257 (1979).
7. "Errors involving deprivation of constitutional rights will be regarded as harmless . . . if there is no reasonable possibility that the violation contributed to the conviction." Syl. Pt. 20, in part, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974).
8. "To trigger application of the `plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." Syl. Pt. 7, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).
9. Syl. Pt. 7, State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996).
10. "The State must prove, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that confessions or statements of an accused which amount to admissions of part or all of an offense were voluntary before such may be admitted into the evidence of a criminal case." Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Starr, 158 W.Va. 905, 216 S.E.2d 242 (1975).
11. Syl. Pt. 7, in part, State. v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247, 452 S.E.2d 50(1994).
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Robert D. Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellee.
Mark McMillian, Mark McMillian—Attorney-at-Law, L.C., Charleston, for Appellant.
This is an appeal by Mindy Keesecker (hereinafter "Appellant") from a June 30, 2006, final order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County sentencing the Appellant to three consecutive terms of one to five years in the penitentiary and five years probation upon her convictions of six counts of sexual assault in the third degree. The Appellant contends that the lower court committed several errors in the underlying trial and conviction. Subsequent to thorough review of the record, the briefs, the arguments of counsel, and applicable precedent, this Court reverses the Appellant's conviction and remands this matter to the lower court for a new trial.
The Appellant, age thirty-four at the time of the alleged crimes, served as a worship leader and counselor for youth at a church attended by a fifteen-year-old male, J.G.1 During the Appellant's service in such role, she and J.G. engaged in a sexual relationship from approximately January 2005 to approximately June 2005. Based upon knowledge of extensive telephone conversations and visits between J.G. and the Appellant, J.G.'s mother became concerned regarding the nature of the relationship, and the church minister was asked to discuss the situation with the Appellant. Although the Appellant initially agreed to curtail the relationship with J.G., it allegedly continued in earnest. According to J.G.'s testimony at trial, the relationship included several instances of oral sexual contact and intercourse. J.G's mother ultimately contacted the police when she discovered sexually explicit text messages on a phone purchased for J.G. by the Appellant.
When the Appellant became aware of the criminal investigation, she sought the advice of State Trooper Chuck Maynard, a family friend not directly involved with the investigation. Through the Appellant's brother, Trooper Maynard conveyed his opinion that the matter could be concluded if the Appellant would appear at the state police office and provide a truthful statement. The Appellant subsequently presented herself to the police, voluntarily signed a waiver of rights, and confessed to the sexual activity with J.G.
Subsequent to a jury trial, the Appellant was convicted of six counts of third degree sexual assault. On appeal, the Appellant alleges that the lower court committed the following errors: (1) permitted the prosecutor to present an extensive closing argument premised upon religious theory, including biblical axioms and quotation; (2) failed to suppress the Appellant's confession; (3) permitted the prosecutor to refer to the Appellant's decision to remain silent and not testify at trial; (4) the State's possession of unlawfully obtained recordings by J.G.'s mother of her son's telephone conversations; and (5) the determination that there was a substantial risk of the Appellant's commission of another crime during a period of probation or conditional discharge.
In syllabus point four of Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996), this Court explained as follows: Similarly, in syllabus point three of State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000), explains as follows:
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.
Utilizing those standards of review as guidance, this Court addresses the matters asserted by the Appellant.
A primary assignment of error forwarded by the Appellant alleges that the prosecuting attorney made certain prejudicial remarks during closing argument which impermissibly commented upon the Appellant's failure to testify. Specifically, the prosecutor stated as follows:
And you heard her tell the same thing to the State Police. The exact same thing.
Well, let's talk about that for a little bit. They would want you to believe that you can't trust this statement she gave to the State Police. You never heard anybody come in here and say this was a false statement.
Subsequent to an objection by counsel for the Appellant and the court's overruling of that objection, the prosecutor continued:
The Appellant contends that the prosecutor's comments violate the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution of West Virginia.2 West Virginia Code § 57-3-6 (1923) (Repl.Vol.2005)3 serves as further protection of the right against self-incrimination, providing that the failure of the defendant to testify cannot be the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McDaniel
...law are reviewed de novo .’ Syl. pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield , 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996)." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Keesecker , 222 W.Va. 139, 663 S.E.2d 593 (2008). Accord syl. pt. 1, State v. Hawk , 222 W.Va. 248, 664 S.E.2d 133 (2008).IV. DiscussionA. Other Act Evidence and Rule......
-
Painter v. Ames, 17-1010
...which petitioner relies for support are easily distinguishable from the facts in petitioner's case. See, e.g., State v. Keesecker 222 W. Va. 139, 147, 663 S.E.2d 593, 601 (2008) (concluding that reversal was warranted because the prosecutor's multiple remarks concerningthe lack of contradic......
-
State v. George J., 13-0132
...part or all of an offense were voluntary before such may be admitted into the evidence of a criminal case." Syl. Pt. 10, State v. Keesecker, 222 W.Va. 139, 633 S.E.2d 593 (2008) (citations omitted). "Whether an extrajudicial inculpatory statement is voluntary or the result of coercive polic......
-
State v. Showalter
...part or all of an offense were voluntary before such may be admitted into the evidence of a criminal case." Syl. Pt. 10, State v. Keesecker, 222 W.Va. 139, 663 S.E.2d 593 (2008) (citations omitted). "Whether an extrajudicial inculpatory statement is voluntary or the result of coercive polic......