State v. Masters
| Decision Date | 16 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 18099,18099 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. Nathan MASTERS. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Syllabus Point 1, State v. Starkey, 161 W.Va. 517, 244 S.E.2d 219 (1978).
2. "Circumstantial evidence will not support a guilty verdict, unless the fact of guilt is proved to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; and circumstances which create only a suspicion of guilt but do not prove the actual commission of the crime charged, are not sufficient to sustain a conviction." Syllabus Point 2, State v. Dobbs, 163 W.Va. 630, 259 S.E.2d 829 (1979).
3. "An [information] alleging a prior conviction for the purpose of augmenting the sentence to be imposed [filed pursuant to W.Va.Code, 61-11-19], is sufficient, as to such prior conviction, if it avers the former conviction with such particularity as to reasonably indicate the nature and character of the former offense, the court wherein the conviction was had and identifies the person so convicted as the person subsequently [convicted]." Syllabus Point 3, as amended, State v. Loy, 146 W.Va. 308, 119 S.E.2d 826 (1961).
4. "A verdict of guilty in a criminal case will not be reversed by this Court because of an error ... unless the error is prejudicial to the accused." Syllabus Point 5, in part, State v. Davis, 153 W.Va. 742, 172 S.E.2d 569 (1970).
Mark A. Karl, Moundsville, for Nathan Masters.
Mary Rich Maloy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellee.
The defendant, Nathan Masters, was convicted of grand larceny in the Circuit Court of Wetzel County. In a subsequent recidivist proceeding, he was also convicted by a jury of having been previously convicted of a felony and an enhanced five years was added, under W.Va.Code, 61-11-18, to give him a one-to-fifteen year prison sentence. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt of grand larceny and that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the property stolen had a value of $200 or more. He also maintains that the recidivist information, which contained the wrong criminal docket number for the prior felony, should have been dismissed as fatally defective. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the defendant's convictions and the absence of any error affecting the defendant's substantial rights, we affirm.
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution shows that a video cassette recorder (VCR) and carrying case were stolen from Video View, a retail business located in Wetzel County, on February 5, 1986. The owner of the business, Andrea Wilt, testified that the business premises was located in a three-room building with the check-out counter in the middle of the room. The VCR's and carrying cases were kept in the room on the east side of the building.
At about 6:55 p.m. on the day of the theft, an inventory was taken which revealed that seven VCR's were available for rental. A few minutes later the defendant and his girlfriend, who were fairly frequent customers, entered the store. The defendant asked to use the restroom and later went into the east room where the VCR units were located. While the owner was seated, doing paperwork behind a counter, she noticed the defendant leaving the store. She was only able to see the back of his head. The defendant returned to the store shortly thereafter. The defendant and his girlfriend then rented four movies and a VCR and left the store. During this time period, only one other customer had been in the store and he had not gone into the east room where the VCR units were kept, according to Ms. Wilt.
Immediately after the defendant and his girlfriend left, the owner began closing the store. Before she turned off the lights, however, she happened to notice that only five VCR units were left in stock and a carrying case was also missing. The next day when the defendant returned the movies and rented VCR, the owner mentioned the missing VCR and case to the defendant. Later that day she discussed the matter with the defendant on the telephone. She also had telephone conversations that day with the defendant's mother and his girlfriend who wanted to pay for the VCR, but did not have the money at that time. The owner testified that the last time the defendant called that day, he said "he would do his best to get the machine back to me" and would have the machine back or the money "by Tuesday." When the VCR was not returned, the owner reported the incident to the police and the defendant was subsequently arrested.
The owner also testified as to the value of the property taken, explaining that she had purchased some seventeen Quasar VCR units and cases about one year prior to the theft. She paid a wholesale price of $370 per VCR and $40 per case. On three recent occasions, she had sold used VCR's to friends for $200 each, without the case, both before and after the theft. She valued the missing VCR and case at $299.95.
The State also introduced the testimony of the owner's sixteen-year-old daughter who stated that she had overheard the defendant's telephone conversation with her mother on a telephone extension and confirmed that the defendant had offered to return the VCR or to pay for it.
The defense called as a witness a certified property appraiser and antique dealer. He testified that a used VCR and case similar to the one missing from the video store was worth less than $200. He placed the wholesale value of similar VCR's at between $100 and $125 and the retail value at $199.95. He also stated that a new VCR of similar quality with a case could be purchased for $199.95, and that in his expert opinion the value of the missing VCR and case was between $125 and $175.
The expert witness admitted on cross-examination, however, that the value he had testified to would have been for a used VCR without a warranty. The missing VCR was still under warranty. The expert also admitted that he had made no investigation of the prices that VCR's were selling for locally and that he had not examined the owner's remaining VCR's in arriving at his estimate of approximate value.
The defense also presented the testimony of the defendant's mother who stated that she had overheard her son say on the telephone that he had not stolen the VCR, but would nonetheless pay for it in order to avoid having his probation revoked. The defendant testified in his own behalf, corroborated his mother's testimony, and denied taking the property. The defendant testified that he had left the store to get his girlfriend's cigarettes from the car, but quickly returned upon realizing he did not have the car keys. His girlfriend then gave him the keys, and he left the store for a second time and returned with the cigarettes. The defendant's girlfriend corroborated his testimony and also testified that only the one rented VCR had been taken from the video store.
Upon the jury's finding the defendant guilty of grand larceny, the prosecuting attorney filed a recidivist information. It alleged the defendant had previously on May 15, 1985, pled guilty to a felony, namely the felonious possession with intent to deliver a Schedule I controlled substance. The information, however, gave an incorrect criminal docket number, No. 85-F-12 instead of 85-F-20.
Prior to the recidivist trial, the defense moved to dismiss the recidivist information on the basis of the incorrect criminal docket number. The court denied the motion.
We address first the defendant's sufficiency of the evidence argument. Our familiar appellate standard of review is stated in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Starkey, 161 W.Va. 517, 244 S.E.2d 219 (1978):
In circumstantial evidence cases, such as in this case, we adhere to the rule stated in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Dobbs, 163 W.Va. 630, 259 S.E.2d 829 (1979):
"Circumstantial evidence will not support a guilty verdict, unless the fact of guilt is proved to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; and circumstances which create only a suspicion of guilt but do not prove the actual commission of the crime charged, are not sufficient to sustain a conviction."
See also Syllabus Point 1, State v. Craft, 165 W.Va. 741, 272 S.E.2d 46 (1980); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Hunter, 103 W.Va. 377, 137 S.E. 534 (1927).
We believe that sufficient evidence was introduced at trial to convince an impartial jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the evidence was not manifestly inadequate. Furthermore, we are persuaded that the circumstantial evidence was such that the jury could rationally conclude that it showed more than mere suspicious circumstances pointing to the defendant's guilt and was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
While the evidence was conflicting on both the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Plumley
...inadequate and that consequent injustice has been done. See State v. Deskins, 181 W.Va. 112, 380 S.E.2d 676 (1989); State v. Masters, 179 W.Va. 752, 373 S.E.2d 173 (1988); State v. Perdue, 179 W.Va. 719, 372 S.E.2d 636 (1988); State v. Hall, 171 W.Va. 212, 298 S.E.2d 246 In circumstantial e......
-
State v. Lewis, 14-0339
...of the prior felony conviction, and proof that the defendant is the person who was convicted of that felony." State v. Masters, 179 W.Va. 752, 755, 373 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1988). 32. The petitioner's trial counsel moved for a continuance to allow him time to search for evidence that might demo......
-
State v. Jerrome
...taken, the jury had enough evidence before it to prove [Ms. Jerrome's] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Masters, 179 W.Va. 752, 755, 373 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1988). The jury heard the testimony of the victims as to the value of their stolen property at the time of the offense. They al......
-
State ex rel. Keenan v. Hatcher
...petitioner with respect to at least one of the predicate felonies cited in the recidivist information. 5. See State v. Masters, 179 W.Va. 752, 755, 373 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1988) ("Two key elements of a recidivist proceeding are proof of the prior conviction, and proof that the defendant is the......