State v. Lansdowne

• Decision Date: 12 January 2022
• Docket Number: 20-1004
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Elliott D. Lansdowne, Defendant Below, Petitioner

State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent
v.
Elliott D. Lansdowne, Defendant Below, Petitioner

No. 20-1004

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

January 12, 2022

(Jefferson County CC-19-2020-F-5)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Elliott D. Lansdowne, by counsel B. Craig Manford, appeals the November 16, 2020, order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County sentencing petitioner to consecutive sentences of life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder and ten years in the penitentiary for use or presentation of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Respondent State of West Virginia, by counsel Patrick Morrisey and Andrea Nease Proper, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order.

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 affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On August 24, 2019, petitioner shot and killed Taylor Ann Pond ("the victim") through her closed exterior apartment door. The victim and petitioner were both twenty-eight years old at the time of the shooting. In January of 2020, petitioner was indicted on one count of first-degree murder and one count of use or presentation of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

In advance of his trial, petitioner filed two motions: a motion to suppress and a motion to continue the trial. In the first motion, petitioner sought to suppress the recorded interview he gave to Officers Alissa Meeks and Jason Newlin of the Charles Town Police Department on August 25, 2019. Petitioner argued that the interview contained inculpatory custodial statements, asserting that

the interrogation tactics employed by the State fomented both hope and despair in the mind of [petitioner] misrepresentations or mistaken statements of law [were] made by law enforcement to [petitioner] [that] affected the voluntariness of his

1

statement; and promises and benefits were held out to [petitioner] to induce his confession, all in violation of law

Specifically, petitioner took issue with the following portions of the interview:

MEEKS: What this comes down to is how much time you want to do, okay

. . . .

PETITIONER: I'm not coming home.

MEEKS: Well, that's up to you.

NEWLIN: It hasn't been decided yet, bud.

. . . .

MEEKS: I can't make you promises, I can't tell you how its going to turn out, but I can tell you now because I've seen it happen, okay, what they do, they take your criminal history, I don't think you're classified as a career criminal. I think you're classified as making some bad mistakes, okay, because I've seen a whole lot of criminal histories[.]

. . . .

MEEKS: It's a first time. Okay. Because I'm going to tell you right now, if I'm sitting there on that bench and I see a young man come to me and I have two people, okay, and I have a young man who comes to me and he says I f**ked up, okay, I didn't mean for it to happen like that but I f**ked up. He owns it. He takes responsibility for it. He has that backbone. It's not what he intended to do but he's owning it like a man. I'm going to respect that guy a whole lot more than another one that comes to me and says I didn't do it, I didn't have any involvement with it, I'm going to wash my hands of it and I'm, going to eat the full time. I don't care what that sentence is. I'm going to respect that. I think you deserve respect and I want you to have that utmost --

. . . .

PETITIONER: I haven't admitted nothing. . . Or denied anything.

NEWLIN: But you kind of haven't helped yourself either, you know what I'm getting at?

. . . .

PETITIONER: For felony crimes do you, like -- good time is, like 50

2

percent of the time or 65 or something.

MEEKS: I can tell you what they do. They can give you credit for responsibility because you know what, a lot of times, like, the one that I was telling you about that just got married in prison, that was the federal, and they give you a reduction of sentence based on acceptance of responsibility because what they will do is -- I don't think that you would be classified as a career criminal. You've got a couple felonies. They're not felonies like I've dealt with in the past so what they do is score those based on -- and I'm just being straight with you, I'm telling you based on your history, okay, because that's how I operate. They score those, you will be given a factor and a level number, and then they reduce it from there. They reduce it from -- what they do is called it basically, like a PSI report, they do background and they determine a factor and then they can lower that number based on acceptance of responsibility. They can lower that number based on how soon you take a plea agreement. They can lower that number based on a lot of factors and that's legit, that's how it works, okay? So you've got stacked up in your head that it's some life sentence, but I'm going to tell you what, that woman in there --listen.

Respondent filed a response to the motion in which it asserted that, under the totality of the circumstances, petitioner's inculpatory statements were voluntary and not coerced.

In the motion to continue, petitioner asked the trial court to continue his trial for ninety days over concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic might prevent him from receiving a fair trial. More specifically, he stated, "[Petitioner] is fearful that once a jury is empaneled and sits through two to three days['] worth of trial they will undoubtedly rush through their deliberations in an effort to distance themselves from others and possible contact with the virus." The motion also asserted:

[C]ounsel finished a 2 and one-half [day] jury trial on September 4, 2020, in Berkeley County, at which time the jury only deliberated for an hour before reaching a verdict in the case, which was, by the way, guilty on four counts and not guilty on two counts. Of course, counsel cannot cite the [c]ourt to any empirical data or evidence that juries in the Covid-19 climate tend to rush their deliberations but it is obviously a real concern and not just an attempt to stall the proceedings unnecessarily.

Respondent filed a response asking the trial court to deny the motion. In support of its position, respondent stated that Jefferson County was not experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases and that there was no evidence COVID-19 would influence the jury's deliberations.

The trial court considered both of petitioner's motions during a pretrial hearing. By order entered on September 17, 2020, the trial court denied both of petitioner's motions. Regarding the motion to suppress, the trial court indicated that it reviewed the entirety of petitioner's interview with Officers Meeks and Newlin, finding "by a preponderance of the evidence that the totality of the circumstances show that [petitioner]'s statement was made knowingly and voluntarily, after

3

having been read his Miranda rights." The order went on to state:

Initially the [c]ourt finds that [petitioner] is clearly intelligent, as he appeared to be engaging in a give-and-take with the officers with his goal being the determination of what evidence they had against him before he eventually showed his cards and gave his side of the shooting. Next, [petitioner]'s criminal history and [petitioner]'s statements make[] clear that he is very familiar with the criminal justice system. Upon review the [c]ourt finds[] no promises were made by the officers to [petitioner] during the interview. Finally, the [c]ourt finds that three (3) to four (4) hours length of the recorded interview is not unduly long. Especially when considering the thirty to forty-five minutes at the beginning of the video and thirty minutes at the end that were dead time.

The trial court further found that "[n]either the discussion about a baby nor Det. Meeks' discussion about federal sentencing procedures produced despair of the kind raised by [petitioner] in the case law cited to the [c]ourt."

Regarding the motion to continue, the trial court concluded that "COVID-19 is not a sufficient ground for a continuance at this time given the current situation and the success of other recent trials in Jefferson and Berkeley counties."

Petitioner's trial began on September 21, 2020, with jury selection. During voir dire, petitioner's counsel asked:

Is any member of the panel so uncomfortable due to the current COVID-19 pandemic that they would be unable to fulfill [their] duties . . . being in close proximity to other potential jurors despite all the precautions we're taking now and will take during the trial itself? Anybody so uncomfortable with that they couldn't do that? Couldn't actually, you know, you got picked on the jury and you go back and you deliberate, you would be able to express your opinions? You wouldn't rush things, like, let's get out of here, we've been together too long. You would really be able to give everybody a fair shake?

The trial court then explained to the potential jurors that the trial would take place in the "historical courtroom," that the courtroom would become the jury room during breaks, that the jury would be permitted to spread out in the courtroom to conduct deliberations, and that physical distancing would be possible. None of the potential jurors indicated that they would be unwilling or unable to serve on the jury due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After the jury...