State v. McGill
| Decision Date | 12 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–1386.,11–1386. |
| Citation | 230 W.Va. 569,741 S.E.2d 127 |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Michael J. McGILL, Defendant Below, Petitioner. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. The subpoena authority under W. Va.Code § 57–5–4 (1990) (Repl.Vol.2012) requires a legal proceeding be pending in order for a subpoena duces tecum to issue.
2. The subpoena authority under Rule 17 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a legal proceeding be
pending in order for a subpoena duces tecum to issue.
3. “Where improper evidence of a nonconstitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial, the test to determine if the error is harmless is: (1) the inadmissible evidence must be removed from the State's case and a determination made as to whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to convince impartial minds of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) if the remaining evidence is found to be insufficient, the error is not harmless; (3) if the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, an analysis must then be made to determine whether the error had any prejudicial effect on the jury.” Syllabus point 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502, 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979).
Robert G. McCoid, McCamic, Sacco & McCoid, Wheeling, WV, Attorney for Petitioner.
Patrick Morrissey, Attorney General, Robert D. Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, WV, Attorney for Respondent.
This is an appeal by Michael J. McGill (hereinafter “Mr. McGill”) from an order of the Circuit Court of Marshall County resentencing him to one year incarceration upon a conviction of simple battery.1 In this appeal, Mr. McGill contends that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting his medical records into evidence during his trial. After a careful review of the briefs and record submitted on appeal, and listening to the arguments of the parties, we affirm.2
The relevant facts of this case began at a campground on Fish Creek, in Marshall County, West Virginia. On Friday, June 12, 2009, Mr. McGill, his wife, Becky McGill, and their daughter went to the campground for the weekend. Also on the same day, Mr. McGill's cousin, Sheila McGill, traveled to the same campground to spend the weekend at a campsite that was immediately adjacent to Mr. McGill's campsite. Sheila McGill had a friend with her named Mary Ratliff. At some point during the course of the day on June 13, 2009, a man by the name of Michael Yoho was driving an ATV near the campground. Becky McGill recognized Mr. Yoho as he drove by and invited him over to the campsite. Mr. Yoho accepted the invitation and was introduced to Mr. McGill, Sheila McGill, and Mary Ratliff.
At some point just before dusk, Mr. McGill, his wife, and Mr. Yoho decided to go to a nearby general store/tavern to buy some beer and cigarettes. The record indicates that the three individuals were gone from the campsite for about an hour or less. The testimony at trial revealed that after the three individuals returned, Mr. McGill began beating on Mr. Yoho for apparently making “a pass” at Becky McGill. Mr. McGill was seen punching Mr. Yoho to the ground and kicking him. Sheila McGill attempted to stop Mr. McGill, and, in the process, he knocked her to the ground. Mr. McGill eventually struck Sheila McGill in the head with a dust mop.
Although Mr. Yoho's face was bloodied, he was able to leave the campsite on his own. The next day, June 14, relatives of Mr. Yoho contacted the local sheriff to report that he had not come home and was missing. Mr. Yoho was found dead on June 15 with his body pinned against a tree by his ATV.3 The details are not clear in the record, but somehow the sheriff's office was informed that Mr. Yoho had been beaten on the previous day by Mr. McGill. An investigation was made at the campsite on the same day that Mr. Yoho's body was found. It appears that, during the course of the investigation, the police learned that Mr. McGill had gone to a hospital to have his right hand and left foot examined. Immediately after the police learned that Mr. McGill had gone to the hospital for injuries sustained in the fight, they obtained a court order compelling the hospital to turn over Mr. McGill's health records.4
On November 10, 2009, a grand jury indicted Mr. McGill on one count of malicious assault of Mr. Yoho and on one count of third offense domestic battery against Sheila McGill. Prior to trial, Mr. McGill filed a motion in limine to prevent the prosecutor from introducing his medical records into evidence. Mr. McGill argued, in essence, that the circuit court did not have authority to issue the order requiring his medical records to be turned over. The trial court denied the motion, and the prosecutor introduced the medical records into evidence during the trial. A jury ultimately returned a verdict finding Mr. McGill not guilty of third offense domestic battery but found him guilty of simple battery as a lesser included offense of malicious assault. This appeal followed.
This case presents a single issue for resolution. That issue is whether the trial court properly denied Mr. McGill's motion to suppress the introduction of his medical records into evidence.5 In State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595, 461 S.E.2d 101 (1995), this Court explained the standard of review of a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress is a two-tier standard:
[W]e first review a circuit court's findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. Second, we review de novo questions of law and the circuit court's ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement action. Under the clearly erroneous standard, a circuit court's decision ordinarily will be affirmed unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence; based on an erroneous interpretation of applicable law; or, in light of the entire record, this Court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made. When we review the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Lilly, 194 W.Va. at 600, 461 S.E.2d at 106 (internal citations and footnote omitted). This Court further has explained:
When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most favorable to the State, as it was the prevailing party below. Because of the highly fact-specific nature of a motion to suppress, particular deference is given to the findings of the circuit court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to hear testimony on the issues. Therefore, the circuit court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
Syl. pt. 1, State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996). With these standards in mind, Mr. McGill's arguments will be considered.
In this proceeding, Mr. McGill has set out two substantive arguments. First, he argues that the trial court's order requiring his medical records be turned over was an invalid search warrant. Second, Mr. McGill contends that the order was an improperly issued subpoena duces tecum. Insofar as the State neither argued below nor in this appeal that the order was a search warrant, we need not address that issue.6
Mr. McGill contends that the purported subpoena duces tecum issued by the circuit court was not in compliance with W. Va.Code § 57–5–4 (1990) (Repl.Vol.2012) or Rule 17 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure.7 We note initially that “interpretations of statutes and rules are subject to a de novo review.” Syl. pt. 1, in part, State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996). See Syl. pt. 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep't of West Virginia, 195 W.Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995) (). A basic rule of statutory construction provides that “ ‘[w]hen a statute [or rule] is clear and unambiguous and the [drafter's] intent is plain, the statute [or rule] should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute [or rule].’ ” Snider v. Fox, 218 W.Va. 663, 667, 627 S.E.2d 353, 357 (2006) (quoting Syl. pt. 5, State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, V.F.W., 144 W.Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959)). We will address the statutory and rule-based arguments separately.
Mr. McGill asks this Court to determine whether the prosecutor had authority to obtain the subpoena under W. Va.Code § 57–5–4 when no legal proceeding was pending against him.8 It is provided under W. Va.Code § 57–5–4, in relevant part, that,
[w]hen it appears by affidavit or otherwise that a ... document in the possession of any person not a party to the matter in controversy is material and proper to be produced before the court, ... such court ... may order the clerk of the said court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel such production at a time and place to be specified in the order.
(Emphasis added). Mr. McGill contends that the use of the phrase “not a party to the matter in controversy” in W. Va.Code § 57–5–4 “presupposes the existence of an active case[.]” We agree with Mr. McGill.
To understand the application of W. Va.Code § 57–5–4, we must examine the statute together with W. Va.Code § 57–5–3 (1923) (Repl.Vol.2012).9 Such an analysis is consistent with our recognition that “[s]tatutes which relate to the same subject matter should be read and applied together so that the Legislature's intention can be gathered from the whole of the enactments.” Syl. pt. 3, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975). This Court has held that “statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clark
...at the time the federal DEA subpoena was issued. Although this Court recently held in syllabus points 1 and 2 of State v. McGill, 230 W.Va. 569, 741 S.E.2d 127 (2013) that the subpoena authority under W. Va.Code § 57–5–4 (1990) and Rule 17 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure re......
-
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Clark
...a limitation in the statute, a court has no power to issue a subpoena duces tecum unless a case is pending before it. State v . McGill, 230 W. Va. 569, 573, 741 S.E.2d 127 (2013) ; see also Rogers v . Superior Court, 145 Cal. 88, 91, 78 P. 344 (1904) ("A witness can be compelled to 192 Wash......
- State v. Rhodes