State v. Mongold
Decision Date | 06 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 33222.,33222. |
Citation | 647 S.E.2d 539 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Jeremiah David MONGOLD, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
1. Syllabus point 2, State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994).
2. Syllabus point 1, State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994).
3. Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence requires the prosecution in a criminal case to disclose evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts prior to trial if such disclosure has been requested by the accused; however, upon reasonable notice such evidence may be disclosed for the first time during trial upon a showing of good cause for failure to provide the requested pretrial notice.
4. The fact that a criminal charge against a defendant is dismissed or that he/she is acquitted of the same does not prohibit use of the incident under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.
5. Syllabus point 4, State v. Richey, 171 W.Va. 342, 298 S.E.2d 879 (1982).
6. Syllabus point 10, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).
Lawrence E. Sherman, Jr., Romney, for Appellant.
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, James W. Wegman, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellee.
Jeremiah David Mongold (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Mongold") appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Hampshire County convicting him of the crime of death of a child by a parent, guardian or custodian by child abuse. The circuit court sentenced Mr. Mongold to a definite term of imprisonment of forty years. Here, Mr. Mongold has made the following assignments of error: (1) the admission of evidence of a prior child abuse incident, (2) the admission of evidence concerning the reason for his loss of employment, and (3) the admission of autopsy photos of the victim. After a thorough review of the record, briefs and the applicable laws, we affirm the conviction and sentence of Mr. Mongold.
Mr. Mongold resided in Shanks, West Virginia, with his wife, Shiloh Aumock, and her two children, five-year-old Logan and two-year-old Hannah.1 According to the testimony of Mr. Mongold, on the morning of May 16, 2004, he got out of bed and provided breakfast for Logan and Hannah.2 After breakfast, Mr. Mongold began playing with the children. One of the games they played was called "airplane." This game required Mr. Mongold to lie on his back and place one of the children on his raised legs and, while holding the child's hands, twirl the child in the air. Mr. Mongold played airplane with Logan first. Then he began playing with Hannah. He played with Hannah for about four minutes. According to Mr. Mongold, after he played airplane with Hannah, he attempted to pick her up and noticed that she was limp and felt like jello. Mr. Mongold immediately called 911 for help.
In response to the 911 call, two emergency medical technicians (hereinafter referred to as "EMTs") arrived at the home and found Hannah lying on the kitchen floor. The EMTs observed that Hannah was barely breathing, her skin was turning blue, and two bruises were over her right eye. Within minutes of observing Hannah's condition, the EMTs placed her in the ambulance and began transportation to a local hospital. However, after a further examination of Hannah in the ambulance, the EMTs determined that her condition warranted helicopter transportation to a better equipped hospital in Maryland. Consequently, the ambulance proceeded to a local fire station to connect with the helicopter. While en route to the fire station, arrangements were also made by the EMTs for a paramedic to rendevous with the ambulance. The paramedic reached the ambulance and began examining Hannah while still en route to the fire station. The paramedic determined that Hannah's symptoms suggested that she had a head injury.
Once the ambulance arrived at the fire station, Hannah was placed into a helicopter. She was flown to Cumberland Memorial Hospital, in Cumberland, Maryland. While at the hospital, it was determined that Hannah suffered from brain swelling and that she had blood on the surface of her skull. As a result of the severity of Hannah's head injuries, she was transported to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.
At Johns Hopkins Hospital, tests revealed that Hannah suffered from either asphyxiation/strangulation or severe head trauma. Despite efforts to resolve her brain injuries, Hannah died two days later. Subsequent to her death, an autopsy was performed on Hannah. The autopsy revealed that Hannah had sustained four blunt impacts to her head and that those injuries caused her death.
On September 7, 2004, a grand jury returned a one-count indictment against Mr. Mongold, charging him with causing Hannah's death by a parent, guardian or custodian by child abuse. The case was tried before a jury in March of 2005. During the trial, Mr. Mongold testified on his own behalf. Mr. Mongold's defense was that Hannah's injuries may have been caused when the family dog knocked her down on May 15, or when she fell from the deck of the home on the same day. Alternatively, Mr. Mongold suggested that the injuries to Hannah occurred while he played "airplane" with her on May 16. The State's evidence indicated that the injuries sustained by Hannah could not have been caused by being knocked down by a dog, falling from the deck of the home, or while playing the game of "airplane." The jury rejected Mr. Mongold's defense and convicted him. Subsequent to the conviction, the trial court sentenced Mr. Mongold to a definite term of imprisonment of forty years. All post-trial motions were denied. Mr. Mongold then filed this appeal.
Three issues are presented in this appeal that generally involve the admission of evidence to which Mr. Mongold objected. We have held as a general rule that "[a] trial court's evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard." Syl. pt. 4, State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W.Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998). See also State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 680, 461 S.E.2d 163, 186 (1995) () . We will provide additional review standards as they apply to each specific issue presented.
The first issue raised by Mr. Mongold involves the State's cross-examination...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rollins
...his wife's death was an accident, and the domestic violence evidence was presented to rebut that position. In State v. Mongold, 220 W.Va. 259, 265, 647 S.E.2d 539, 545 (2007), the Court allowed evidence of prior abuse of another child to rebut the petitioner's argument that his young daught......
-
State v. Herbert
...tried to run down several members of the jury. The van did not hit any jurors, but narrowly missed some.”).9 State v. Mongold, 220 W.Va. 259, 263, 647 S.E.2d 539, 543 (2007) (autopsy photos showing “four blunt impacts” to child victim's head admissible); State v. Copen, 211 W.Va. 501, 505, ......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson
...; State v. Thornton, 228 W.Va. 449, 720 S.E.2d 572 (2011) ; State v. Thompson, 220 W.Va. 246, 647 S.E.2d 526 (2007) ; State v. Mongold, 220 W.Va. 259, 647 S.E.2d 539 (2007) ; State ex rel. Diva P. v. Kaufman, 200 W.Va. 555, 490 S.E.2d 642 (1997) ; West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Res......
-
State Va. v. Berry
...‘[t]he general rule is that pictures or photographs that are relevant to any issue in a case are admissible.’ ” State v. Mongold, 220 W.Va. 259, 272, 647 S.E.2d 539, 552 (2007) (quoting Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hosp., Inc., 176 W.Va. 492, 497, 345 S.E.2d 791, 796 (1986)). In Syllabus point......