State v. Michael C.
| Decision Date | 25 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-0467 |
| Parties | STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff Below, Respondent, v. MICHAEL C., Defendant Below, Petitioner. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted: February 1, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mercer County The Honorable Derek C. Swope, Judge Criminal Case No. 19-F-94-DS
Gary A. Collias, Esq. Appellate Advocacy Division Public Defender Services Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for Petitioner
Patrick Morissey, Esq., Attorney General Mary Beth Niday Esq., Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for Respondent
1. " Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Farmer, 185 W.Va. 232, 406 S.E.2d 458 (1991).
2. ." Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Greenfield, 237 W.Va. 773, 791 S.E.2d 403 (2016)
3. The question of whether or not the evidence of a witness's prior conviction is relevant is not a factor in determining its admissibility under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 609; by definition, the evidence is relevant to impeach the witness's credibility.
4. Where a party seeks to admit evidence of a witness's eligible prior conviction pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Evidence 609, the sole issue to be determined by the circuit court is whether the probative value of the impeachment evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the factors enumerated in West Virginia Rule of Evidence 403: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Mercer County, West Virginia, the petitioner, Michael C.,[1] was convicted on one count of "Child Abuse Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury." See W.Va. Code § 61-8D-3(b) (2020). The four and one-half-month-old victim, A.O. ("the baby"), suffered permanent, life-altering injuries, including blindness and severe, pervasive developmental delay, as a result of non-accidental trauma.
The petitioner's defense, which he was precluded from advancing by virtue of two evidentiary rulings made by the circuit court, was that the testimony of the baby's mother ("T.E."), the State's key witness, was not credible. To that end, the petitioner sought to introduce evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) and/or Rule 609[2] of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that two years earlier the mother had been convicted in the Commonwealth of Virginia of felony child endangerment, a charge arising from her failure to provide nutrition and medical care to her six-month-old daughter.[3] The circuit court refused admission of the evidence under Rule 404(b), finding that its The court also refused to admit the evidence for impeachment purposes under Rule 609, finding that under the balancing test set forth in Rule 403, the evidence was more prejudicial than probative.
Upon careful review of the parties' briefs and oral arguments, the appendix record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the circuit court erred in refusing to admit the mother's prior conviction as impeachment evidence pursuant to Rule 609.[4] Further, under the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed infra, the error cannot be deemed harmless. We therefore reverse the circuit court's decision and remand this case for a new trial.
Somewhere around 8:00 p.m. on the evening of April 10, 2019, the petitioner and T.E. picked up T.E.'s infant son, A.O., from the home of his grandparents, and transported him to T.E.'s residence. There, T.E. played with the baby, fed him, and put him to bed, during which time she testified that he appeared normal in all respects.
The petitioner spent that night at T.E.'s home, and the following morning, April 11, 2019, T.E. got up with the baby, changed him, and fed him, during which time she testified that he was again "playful" and "normal" in all respects. The petitioner took over caring for the baby when T.E. left for work at approximately 8:00 a.m. At 9:37 a.m., the petitioner texted T.E. to report that the baby wasn't eating well, having taken only part of his bottle, and at 2:13 p.m. he texted her again to report that the baby still wasn't eating, had vomited, and seemed lethargic.
After T.E. returned home somewhere between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., she took the baby to the Emergency Room at Princeton Community Hospital in Princeton, West Virginia, where she reported that the baby was lethargic, had vomited once, and had a rash to the face and arms. The medical records indicate that the baby was triaged at 8:00 p.m. Dr. Ricky Lee Bradley, who was on duty and examined the baby, testified that the infant was somewhat lethargic but that his pupils were reactive, he had no deviated gaze, had no observable rash, and had no problems, either reported or observed, with moving his right arm or right leg. Dr. Bradley's main concern was with possible dehydration, which he testified can cause lethargy, so he gave the baby a bolus of fluid and suggested that he be admitted to the hospital for observation. T.E. demurred, stating that she would follow up with the baby's regular doctor the following morning, after which she left the hospital with the child.
The next morning, April 12, 2019, the baby was examined by his regular pediatrician, Dr. Jamie Yahya Blankenship. T.E. reported to Dr. Blankenship that from 4:00 p.m. on April 11, 2019, and onward, the baby seemed extremely ill, with lethargy, irritability, and deviated gaze; T.E. further reported that the baby was not moving his right arm or leg normally. Dr. Blankenship testified that on examination the baby was lethargic; his anterior fontanelle (the "soft spot" on his head) was full;[5] his pupils were non-reactive; he was uncomfortable at being touched; he had a petechial rash on his forehead; and he had bruises on his left brow and right chin. Dr. Blankenship sent the baby back to the Emergency Room at Princeton Community Hospital, where Dr. Matthew Dellacona diagnosed a subdural hematoma on the left side of the baby's brain and ordered him life-flighted to Carilion-Roanoke Memorial Hospital in Roanoke, Virginia.
At the Roanoke facility, the baby was examined by Lisa Yates, a forensic nurse examiner, and treated in the intensive care unit ("ICU") by Dr. Randall Ruppel. Ms. Yates testified that the baby had bruising along his jaw line, under the chin, and around the nose, and that his fontanelle was swollen. Dr. Ruppel testified that the baby had had a subacute stroke resulting from the subdural hemorrhage, and that he remained at the hospital in Roanoke for several weeks of live-saving treatment.
In addition to the treating physicians and the forensic nurse examiner, all of whom testified at trial, the State retained two expert physicians to review the medical records. Dr. Joan Phillips testified that the baby's injuries, subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage, edema of the brain, encephalopathy, retinal hemorrhage, fractured skull, and bruises on multiple planes of the body, resulted from what she characterized as "abusive head trauma with impact." Dr. Wilbur L. Smith stated that his review of the baby's medical imaging indicated that the baby had a broken right femur as well as the injuries catalogued by Dr. Phillips.
Id. The factual basis for the Virginia charge was that T.E. failed to feed, or properly feed, her six-month-old child, and failed to provide her with necessary medical care. Defense counsel argued that the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show absence of mistake and lack of accident on the part of T.E., who had a "window of opportunity for the infliction of the victim's injuries" when she, rather than the petitioner, was caring for the baby. Following briefing and argument the circuit court denied the motion, concluding in essence that the Virginia conviction, which the court characterized as one involving neglect, was not probative as to the West Virginia charge, which the court characterized as one involving abuse.
Thereafter defense counsel moved for admission of the evidence to impeach T.E.'s credibility pursuant to Rule 609. The court took the issue under advisement, and the case ultimately proceeded to trial on March 30, 2021. At trial, neither the extent of the baby's injuries, nor the fact that those injuries had been sustained as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial