State v. McClain

Decision Date17 November 2022
Docket Number21-0873
Citation247 W.Va. 423,880 S.E.2d 889
Parties STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent, v. Micah A. MCCLAIN, Defendant Below, Petitioner.
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

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

BUNN, Justice:

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:

1. Does the Legislature's 2010 amendment of West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1, replacing the word "accident" with "crash," create ambiguity in the statute?
Answer: No.
2. To be criminally responsible for a violation of West Virginia Code §§ 17C-4-1(a) and (d), must a defendant's vehicle have made direct physical contact with the other vehicle or person whose death was proximately caused by the crash?
Answer: No.
3. Is the determination of whether a defendant was "involved in a crash" as contemplated by West Virginia Code §§ 17C-4-1(a) and (d) a question of fact?
Answer: Yes.
I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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:

1. Does the Legislature's 2010 amendment of West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1, replacing the word "accident" with "crash" create ambiguity in the interpretation of the statute?
2. In applying the rule of lenity, does the operative phrase "vehicle involved in a crash" in West Virginia Code §[§] 17C-4-1(a) and (d) [2018], mean that a vehicle must make direct physical contact with or collide with a person or vehicle being driven or occupied by a person resulting in his or her injury or death?
3. Does the phrase "involved in a crash" as contemplated in West Virginia Code §[§] 17C-4-1(a) [and] (d), include a driver who makes contact with a single vehicle and that vehicle makes contact with other vehicles in an unbroken chain resulting in an injury or death to persons in other vehicles?
4. If ambiguity does not exist, should the Court allow the word "crash" as used in West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1, to be given its common, ordinary and accepted meaning? Further, is it a question of fact as to whether or not the driver of any vehicle was involved in a "crash" as contemplated in West Virginia Code §[§] 17C-4-1(a) [and] (d)?

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

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

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.

III.DISCUSSION

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 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 ....

Syl. pt. 3, in part, Kincaid v. Mangum , 189 W. Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993). See also W. Va. Code § 51-1A-4 ("The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia may reformulate a question certified to it."). Consistent with our authority to do so, we reformulate the questions to be resolved as follows:

1. Does the Legislature's 2010 amendment of West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1, replacing the word "accident" with "crash," create ambiguity in the statute?
2. To be criminally responsible for a violation of West Virginia Code §§ 17C-4-1(a) and (d), must a defendant's vehicle have made direct physical contact with the other vehicle or person whose death was proximately caused by the crash?
3. Is the determination of whether a defendant was "involved in a crash" as contemplated by West Virginia Code §§ 17C-4-1(a) and (d) a question of fact?

We will address each of these questions in turn.

We will briefly recount the historical background regarding the statute at issue. Prior to 2010, West Virginia Code § 17C-4-1 (eff. 1999), in relevant part, provided that

(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and shall remain at the scene of the accident until he or she has complied with the requirements of section three of this article: Provided, That the driver may leave the scene of the accident as may reasonably be necessary for the purpose of rendering assistance to an injured person as required by said section three. Every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.
(b) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this section after being involved in an accident resulting in the death of any person is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement in a correctional facility for not more than three years or fined not more than five thousand
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT