State v. McClain
| Decision Date | 17 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-0873 |
| Parties | STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff Below, Respondent, v. MICAH A. MCCLAIN, Defendant Below, Petitioner. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted: October 18, 2022
Certified Questions from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County The Honorable Cindy S. Scott, Judge Criminal Action No. 21-F-76
J Michael Benninger, Esq. Benninger Law, PLLC Morgantown, West Virginia Bader C. Giggenbach, Esq. Giggenbach Legal, PLLC Morgantown, West Virginia Attorneys for the Petitioners
Patrick Morrisey, Esq. Attorney General Karen C. Villanueva-Matkovich, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Respondent
Perri DeChristopher, Esq. Prosecuting Attorney Robert J. Zak Jr., Esq. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Monongalia County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Monongalia County Prosecuting Attorney
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "The appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo." Syllabus point 1, Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996).
2. "When a certified question is not framed so that this Court is able to fully address the law which is involved in the question, then this Court retains the power to reformulate questions certified to it under . . . the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act found in W.Va. Code, 51-1A-1, et seq. . . ." Syllabus point 3, in part, Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993).
3. "The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Syllabus point 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).
4. "Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation." Syllabus point 2, State v. Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968).
5. "[W]ords and terms used in a legislative enactment will be given their common, ordinary and accepted meaning." Syllabus point 6, in part, State ex rel. Cohen v. Manchin, 175 W.Va. 525, 336 S.E.2d 171 (1984).
6. In the context of West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1 (eff. 2018), the phrase "involved in a crash" is unambiguous.
7. To be criminally responsible pursuant to West Virginia Code §§ 17C-4-1(a) and (d) (eff. 2018), it is not a requirement that a defendant's vehicle make direct physical contact with the other vehicle or person whose death was proximately caused by the crash.
8. The determination of whether a defendant is "involved in a crash" pursuant to West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1 (eff. 2018) is a question of fact.
The Circuit Court of Monongalia County certified four questions to this Court seeking clarification as to the application of West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1 (eff. 2018), pertaining to vehicle crashes involving death or personal injuries and the duties and obligations of an individual involved in the crash (commonly referred to as the hit-and-run statute).[1] After exercising our authority to reformulate the certified questions, we answer them as follows:
This matter arises out of events that occurred on September 5, 2019, when Petitioner Micah McClain was driving a 2012 Peterbilt tractor transporting a bulldozer on a lowboy trailer for his employer. Shortly after 12:00 p.m., he was driving in the eastbound lane of County Route 7, the Mason Dixon Highway, in Monongalia County, West Virginia.[2] An escort vehicle, driven by another employee, drove ahead of Mr. McClain. Directly behind Mr. McClain, Allison Lippert was driving a personal vehicle, and behind her, Stephanie Eddy was also driving a personal vehicle. At the same time, Nicholas Ali was driving a 2018 Peterbilt triaxle dump truck loaded with hot asphalt in the westbound lane of County Route 7. At approximately 12:16 p.m., Mr. Ali passed the escort vehicle.[3]As Mr. Ali's triaxle dump truck passed Mr. McClain's lowboy trailer, the front left tire of Mr. Ali's dump truck and the blade of the bulldozer Mr. McClain was hauling made contact.[4] Mr. Ali instantly lost control of the dump truck, crossed the center line, and collided with Ms. Lippert's vehicle in the eastbound lane. Mr. Ali's dump truck then rolled over and landed on top of Ms. Eddy's vehicle. The hot asphalt poured into Ms. Eddy's vehicle, and she was trapped. First responders were unable to rescue Ms. Eddy and she died on scene.[5] After the bulldozer on Mr. McClain's lowboy trailer and Mr. Ali's dump truck made contact, Mr. McClain did not stop or park his vehicle; instead, he continued to his intended destination approximately four miles away.[6] Forty to fifty minutes later, Mr. McClain returned to the scene of the incident with his employer supervisors.
Subsequently, on February 26, 2021, a Monongalia County Grand Jury indicted Mr. McClain on one count of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death in violation of West Virginia Code §§ 17C-4-1(a) and (d).[7] The indictment alleged that Mr. McClain unlawfully, intentionally, and feloniously drove a vehicle involved in a crash resulting in the death of Ms. Eddy; failed to immediately stop and remain at the scene of a crash in which he was involved, or as close to the scene as possible; and failed to immediately return and remain at the scene until he had fully complied with the notification and assistance requirements of West Virginia Code § 17C-4-3. Finally, the indictment asserted that the crash proximately caused the death of Ms. Eddy and that Mr. McClain knew or had reason to believe that another person suffered physical injury in said crash.
In March 2021, Mr. McClain filed an omnibus pre-trial motion requesting, among other relief, dismissal of the indictment. Mr. McClain argued that West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1(a) was unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and in July 2021, filed a supplemental memorandum of law in support of his argument. On the same day, Mr. McClain filed another motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that because his vehicle did not directly make contact with Ms. Eddy's vehicle, he was not "involved in a crash."
On July 19, 2021, Mr. McClain filed a motion to certify questions to this Court indicating that the "dispositive question of law presented" is "whether the Legislature's amendment to W.Va. Code § 17C-4-1 in 2010 by substituting the word 'crash' for the word 'accident' creates an ambiguity as applied to the undisputed facts of this case[.]" The motion further asserted that neither Mr. McClain's tractor nor the lowboy trailer collided with Ms. Eddy's vehicle, and therefore, neither Mr. McClain's tractor nor the trailer was a "'vehicle involved in a crash resulting in injury to or death of [Ms. Eddy].'" The State responded in opposition. The circuit court held a hearing on August 31, 2021, and granted Mr. McClain's motion to certify certain questions to this Court. By order entered on October 18, 2021,[8] the circuit court certified the following questions:
The circuit court answered the first two questions in the negative and the last two questions in the affirmative. We accepted the four certified questions and placed this matter on the docket for argument pursuant to Rule 20 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.[9]
This matter involves questions of law certified by a circuit court. We have established that "[t]he appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo." Syl. pt. 1, Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996). With this standard in mind, we proceed to answer the certified questions before us.
Prior to addressing the issues raised, we recognize our authority to reformulate the questions herein certified.
When a certified question is not framed so that this Court is able to fully address the law which is involved in the question, then this Court retains the...
To continue reading
Request your trial