State v. McCoy

• Citation: 632 S.E.2d 70
• Decision Date: 24 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 32860.,32860.
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Earl Ray McCOY, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant.

632 S.E.2d 70

STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Earl Ray McCOY, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant.

No. 32860.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 11, 2006.

Decided May 24, 2006.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "Rulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court's sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Syllabus point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317, 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983).

2. As a general rule, a criminal defendant is entitled to an instruction on any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his/her favor. Consequently, a criminal defendant may present alternative defenses even when they are inconsistent, and the mere fact that a defense may be inconsistent with an alternate defense does not justify excluding evidence related to either defense.

3. The admissibility of corroborative evidence is largely within the trial court's discretion. However, a trial court abuses that discretion when it excludes the testimony of witnesses who would corroborate relevant facts, the veracity of which has been challenged by the prosecutor, when those facts have been relied upon by the defendant's expert in rendering an opinion pertaining to the defendant's defense.

James E. Spurlock, Huntington, Attorney for Appellant.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Barbara H. Allen, Managing Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, Attorneys for Appellee.

DAVIS, Chief Justice:

Earl Ray McCoy, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. McCoy") appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County sentencing him to life in prison, with mercy. Here, Mr. McCoy seeks a new trial based upon the trial court's rulings: (1) preventing him from putting on the defense of self-defense, (2) excluding insanity defense lay witness testimony, (3) allowing improper impeachment, (4) improperly shifting the burden of proof on the insanity defense, and (5) refusing to certify an issue to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Mr. McCoy also complains that the transcript of his mercy hearing has been lost.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. McCoy and Mr. Emmitt Brooks have been in feuds that date back to 1996. For some unknown reason, on March 2, 1996, Mr. Brooks shot Mr. McCoy three times with a rifle.¹ Subsequent to the shooting, Mr. Brooks was indicted on charges that included malicious wounding and wanton endangerment. Mr. Brooks eventually pled guilty to two counts of wanton endangerment in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges.²

In March of 1998, Mr. Brooks went to Mr. McCoy's place of employment and physically assaulted him. Mr. Brooks was prosecuted for the attack and was convicted on a charge of battery. In June of 2002, Mr. Brooks attacked and physically assaulted Mr. McCoy's brother, Luther McCoy.³

During the early part of the day on September 28, 2002, Mr. McCoy was walking along Route 37, in Wayne County, when Mr. Brooks drove by and attempted to assault him. Mr. McCoy escaped the attack by running into a wooded area. Later that same day, Mr. McCoy drove to a party at the home of a friend, Mack Adkins, in Lincoln County. As Mr. McCoy was driving near his friends's home he saw Mr. Brooks. Mr. McCoy stopped his car, grabbed a rifle and fired five shots from his car. Three of the shots struck and killed Mr. Brooks.⁴ Mr. McCoy drove off after the shooting. Several hours later, Mr. McCoy was arrested at his mother's home.

In January of 2003, Mr. McCoy was indicted for first degree murder. Prior to trial, Mr. McCoy entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. During a pre-trial conference Mr. McCoy informed the court that, in addition to his insanity defense, he would also rely upon the defense of self-defense. The trial court ruled that Mr. McCoy could not present both defenses because they were inconsistent. However, the court also indicated that it would revisit the issue should the evidence establish self-defense. Additionally, during a pre-trial conference the trial court ruled that Mr. McCoy could not call certain witnesses who would testify to prior threats Mr. Brooks made against him. Moreover, the trial court refused to allow any testimony concerning the fact that at the time of the shooting Mr. Brooks had weapons in his car.

The trial in this case was bifurcated. Therefore, the jury considered the issue of guilt and mercy separately. During the guilt phase of the trial Mr. McCoy called two psychologists, Dr. Joseph Wyatt and Mr. Andrew Riffle, to testify to the issue of insanity. Both psychologists testified that Mr. McCoy suffered from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as a result of being shot and harassed by Mr. Brooks. Dr. Wyatt opined that at the time of the shooting Mr. McCoy "was not in touch with reality [when] he pulled the trigger." Mr. McCoy elected to testify at trial. During his testimony, Mr. McCoy stated that he did not remember shooting Mr. Brooks. The jury ultimately returned a verdict finding Mr. McCoy guilty of first degree murder. During the second phase of the trial the jury returned a verdict recommending mercy. The trial court thereafter sentenced Mr. McCoy to prison for a term of not less than fifteen years to life. Mr. McCoy made an oral motion for a new trial, which was denied. From this ruling, Mr. McCoy now appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As a general matter, we have held that "`[a] reviewing court should not reverse a criminal case on the facts which have been passed upon by the jury, unless the court can say that there is reasonable doubt of guilt and that the verdict must have been the result of misapprehension, or passion and prejudice.' Syl. pt. 3, State v. Sprigg, 103 W.Va. 404, 137 S.E. 746 (1927)." Syl. pt. 1, State v. Easton, 203 W.Va. 631, 510 S.E.2d 465 (1998). In this case we are called upon to address issues involving the exclusion of witness testimony. We have held that "[r]ulings on the admissibility of evidence are largely within a trial court's sound discretion and should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317, 315 S.E.2d 574 (1983).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Precluding the Defense of Self-defense

Mr. McCoy's first contention is that the trial court committed reversible error in precluding him from asserting the defense of self-defense. During a pre-trial hearing, the trial court denied use of the defense on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the insanity defense. This Court has never expressly ruled upon the issue of inconsistent defenses as presented in the context of this case.⁵ The State contends that courts around the country are split on whether or not a defendant may present inconsistent defenses and that no clear trend exists. We respectfully disagree.⁶

The United States Supreme Court has indicated that "[a]s a general proposition a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor." Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 887, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988). See State v. Poole, 150 N.H. 299, 837 A.2d 307, 310 (N.H.2003) ("Defendants are generally allowed to present alternative theories of defense."); United States v. Mendoza-Acevedo, 950 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1991) ("[Defendant's] generally had the right to pursue alternative defenses."). Our research indicates that all courts addressing the issue of inconsistent defenses in criminal cases have held that "a defendant may present alternative defenses, even if they are inconsistent." Muhammad v. State, 829 A.2d 137, 139 (Del.2003). See also Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 887, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (reversing conviction for failure to allow inconsistent defenses); Accord United States v. Harrison, 55 F.3d 163, 167 n. 6 (5th Cir.1995); United States. v. Abeyta, 27 F.3d 470, 475 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Fay, 668 F.2d 375, 378 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981, 985 (9th Cir.1975); Flake v. State, 156 Ark. 34, 245 S.W. 174, 175 (1922); People v. Atchison, 22 Cal.3d 181, 148 Cal.Rptr. 881, 882, 583 P.2d 735 (1978); State v. Miller, 55 Conn.App. 298, 739 A.2d 1264, 1266 (1999); McClam v. United States, 775 A.2d 1100, 1104 (D.C.Cir.2001); Keyes v. State, 804 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001); Sellers v. State, 245 Ga.App. 621, 538 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2000); People v. Wheeler, 200 Ill.App.3d 301, 146 Ill.Dec. 795, 558 N.E.2d 758, 763 (1990); State v. Shehan, 242 Kan. 127, 744 P.2d 824, 827 (1987); State v. Roman, 802 So.2d 1281, 1284 (La.2001); State v. Knowles, 495 A.2d 335, 338 (Me. 1985); McKay v. State, 90 Md.App. 204, 600 A.2d 904, 911 (1992); Commonwealth v. Fickett, 403 Mass. 194, 526 N.E.2d 1064, 1069 (1988); People v. Cross, 187 Mich.App. 204, 466 N.W.2d 368, 369 (1991); Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591, 593 (Miss.1999); Clayton v. State, 63 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Mo.2001); Walker v. State, 110 Nev. 571, 876 P.2d 646, 649 (1994); People v. Dawson, 173 A.D.2d 262, 569 N.Y.S.2d 659, 660 (1991); State v. Hayes, 88 N.C.App. 749, 364 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1988); State v. Burns, 15 Or.App. 552, 516 P.2d 748, 750 (1973); State v. Ivy, 868 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993); Jones v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 444, 506 S.E.2d 27, 29 (1998).

The mere "fact that [a] `recognized defense' may be inconsistent with another defense the defendant is asserting does not justify excluding evidence and failing to give an instruction on the `recognized defense.'" Arcoren v. United States, 929 F.2d 1235, 1245 (8th Cir.1991). See also Guillard v. United States, 596 A.2d 60, 62 (D.C.Cir.1991) ("A defendant's decision ... to establish ... contradictory defenses does not jeopardize the availability of a self-defense jury instruction as long as self-defense is reasonably raised by the evidence."). It has been further noted that "[t]he rule in...