State v. Newcomb
Decision Date | 23 June 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 34142.,34142. |
Citation | 679 S.E.2d 675 |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. Paul NEWCOMB, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1."Once a prospective juror has made a clear statement during voir dire reflecting or indicating the presence of a disqualifying prejudice or bias, the prospective juror is disqualified as a matter of law and cannot be rehabilitated by subsequent questioning, later retractions, or promises to be fair."Syllabus Point 5, O'Dell v. Miller, 211 W.Va. 285, 565 S.E.2d 407(2002).
2.Syllabus Point 8, State v. Phillips, 194 W.Va. 569, 461 S.E.2d 75(1995).
3.Syllabus Point 1, O'Dell v. Miller, 211 W.Va. 285, 565 S.E.2d 407(2002).
4.Syllabus Point 2, O'Dell v. Miller, 211 W.Va. 285, 565 S.E.2d 407(2002).
5."When considering whether to excuse a prospective juror for cause, a trial court is required to consider the totality of the circumstances and grounds relating to a potential request to excuse a prospective juror, to make a full inquiry to examine those circumstances and to resolve any doubts in favor of excusing the juror."Syllabus Point 3, O'Dell v. Miller, 211 W.Va. 285, 565 S.E.2d 407(2002).
6."If a prospective juror makes an inconclusive or vague statement during voir dire reflecting or indicating the possibility of a disqualifying bias or prejudice, further probing into the facts and background related to such bias or prejudice is required."Syllabus Point 4, O'Dell v. Miller, 211 W.Va. 285, 565 S.E.2d 407(2002).
7."The object of the law is, in all cases in which juries are impaneled to try the issue, to secure [persons] for that responsible duty whose minds are wholly free from bias or prejudice either for or against the accused[.]"Syllabus Point 1, in part, State v. Hatfield,48 W.Va. 561, 37 S.E. 626(1900).
8.When a prospective juror makes a clear statement of bias during voir dire, the prospective juror is automatically disqualified and must be removed from the jury panel for cause.However, when a juror makes an inconclusive or vague statement that only indicates the possibility of bias or prejudice, the prospective juror must be questioned further by the trial court and/or counsel to determine if actual bias or prejudice exists.Likewise, an initial response by a prospective juror to a broad or general question during voir dire will not, in and of itself, be sufficient to determine whether a bias or prejudice exists.In such a situation, further inquiry by the trial court is required.Nonetheless, the trial court should exercise caution that such further voir dire questions to a prospective juror should be couched in neutral language intended to elicit the prospective juror's true feelings, beliefs, and thoughts — and not in language that suggests a specific response, or otherwise seeks to rehabilitate the juror.Thereafter, the totality of the circumstances must be considered, and where there is a probability of bias the prospective juror must be removed from the panel by the trial court for cause.
9.Syllabus Point 2, State v. Peyatt, 173 W.Va. 317, 315 S.E.2d 574(1983).
10.Syllabus Point 8, State v. Guthrie, 205 W.Va. 326, 518 S.E.2d 83(1999).
11."Under the inevitable discovery rule, unlawfully obtained evidence is not subject to the exclusionary rule if it is shown that the evidence would have been discovered pursuant to a properly executed search warrant."Syllabus Point 3, State v. Flippo, 212 W.Va. 560, 575 S.E.2d 170(2002).
12."To prevail under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution requires the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that there was a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means in the absence of police misconduct; (2) that the leads making the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police at the time of the misconduct; and (3) that the police were actively pursuing a lawful alternative line of investigation to seize the evidence prior to the time of the misconduct."Syllabus Point 4, State v. Flippo, 212 W.Va. 560, 575 S.E.2d 170(2002).
13."` ."Syllabus Point 6, State v. Johnson, 219 W.Va. 697, 639 S.E.2d 789(2006).
14."Syllabus Point 2, State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345, 387 S.E.2d 812(1989).
15.Syllabus Point 2, State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516(1994).
16.Syllabus Point 1, State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516(1994).
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq., Attorney General, R. Christopher Smith, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellee.
Dwayne J. Adkins, Esq., Logan County Public Defender, Logan, for Appellant.
This case is before this Court upon appeal of a final order of the Circuit Court of Logan County entered on August 3, 2007.In that order, Paul Newcomb(hereinafter "the appellant") was sentenced to life imprisonment without a recommendation of mercy for his conviction of first degree murder.In this appeal, the appellant asserts that the circuit court committed error in failing to strike two jurors for cause; that the murder weapon as well as certain statements made to an emergency medical technician (EMT) should have been excluded from the trial because of Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966) violations;...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Sutherland
... ... Thereafter, the totality of the circumstances must be considered, and where there is a probability of bias the prospective juror must be removed from the panel by the trial court for cause. Syllabus point 8, State v. Newcomb, 223 W.Va. 843, 679 S.E.2d 675 (2009). 3. A trial court's failure to remove a biased juror from a jury panel, as required by W. Va.Code 6233 (1949) (Repl.Vol.2010), does not violate a criminal defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury if the defendant removes the juror with a peremptory ... ...
-
Daye v. Plumley
... Cornell F. Daye, Petitioner, Petitioner v. Marvin Plumley, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent, Respondent No. 13-0913 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Entered: August 16, 2013 ISSUED: April 4, 2014 (Raleigh County 04-C-531) MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner ... The jury must likewise be instructed to limit its consideration of the prior bad acts evidence to only that purpose. See State v. Newcomb, 223 W.Va. 843, 679 S.E.2d 675 (2009). In the present case, the State provided notice prior to trial that it intended to introduce evidence of the ... ...
-
Smith v. Clark
... ... In re State Public Building Asbestos Litigation , 193 W. Va. 119, 454 S.E.2d 413 (1994) ( Asbestos Litigation ). Thus, in reviewing challenges to findings and ... Pt. 8, in part, State v. Newcomb , 223 W.Va. 843, 679 S.E.2d 675 (2009). Moreover, trial courts must resolve any doubt of possible bias or prejudice in favor of the party seeking to ... ...
-
State Of West Va. v. Lively
... ... LaRock were met by both the prosecution and the trial court. Consequently, the Court finds no error in the trial court's decision to admit certain evidence of the Defendant's prior criminal conduct under the provisions of West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b) ... State v. Newcomb, 223 W.Va. 843, 679 S.E.2d 675 (2009)(upholding admissibility of evidence under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b) where all factors of ... McGinnis were followed by trial court). C. Concerted Action Principle The Defendant next complains that the trial court erroneously ... ...