State v. Peterson

Decision Date20 April 2017
Docket NumberNo. 15-1220,15-1220
Citation799 S.E.2d 98
Parties STATE of West Virginia, Respondent v. Quinton PETERSON, Petitioner
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

Connor D. Robertson, Esq., Weston Law Office, Todd Meadows, Esq., Meadows Law Office, Huntington, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner

Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Elbert Lin, Esq., Solicitor General, Julie A. Warren, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for the Respondent

Valena Beety, Esq., Melissa Giggenbach, Esq., Eric Haught, Rule 10 Student Attorney, Morgantown, West Virginia, Counsel for Amici Curiae, The West Virginia Innocence Project

Justice Ketchum :

Petitioner Quinton Peterson ("Defendant Peterson") appeals the circuit court's November 20, 2015, amended order denying his motion for a new trial. Defendant Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder following a 2008 jury trial and was sentenced to an incarceration term of life without mercy.1

After the circuit court entered its amended order denying his motion for a new trial, Defendant Peterson filed the present appeal, raising numerous assignments of error including: (1) the circuit court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the State's failure to turn over exculpatory Brady2 evidence; (2) the State introduced inadmissible hearsay evidence during the trial; and (3) the prosecutor made a number of improper statements during closing argument.

After thorough review, we affirm the circuit court's order denying Defendant Peterson's motion for a new trial.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 11, 2007, twenty-eight-year old Phillip "Slim" Simmons (hereinafter "victim") was murdered in Huntington, West Virginia. Following an investigation, Defendant Peterson, a twenty-five-year old Columbus, Ohio, resident, was indicted on one count of first-degree murder.

Before discussing the trial in detail, we note the State's theory at trial was that Defendant Peterson murdered the victim after losing approximately $500 to him over the course of two dice games. The first dice game occurred three days before the murder at the home of Erin Stolze. The second dice game occurred on the night of the murder. Defendant Peterson admitted that he and the victim were both dealing drugs and playing dice together on the night of the murder in the outdoor area where the victim's body was found. With this general background in mind, we proceed to examine Defendant Peterson's trial.

The State's first witness at trial was Antonio Smith. Mr. Smith testified that he played dice with Defendant Peterson and the victim at Erin Stolze's house three nights before the murder occurred. Mr. Smith testified that Defendant Peterson lost four or five hundred dollars during this dice game. Mr. Smith stated that the victim was "boisterous" and "bragging" after winning the dice game. Defendant Peterson was upset, according to Mr. Smith, and had a verbal confrontation with the victim. Mr. Smith testified that as Defendant Peterson left the residence, he said, "Damn, I wish I had my gun." Also, Mr. Smith testified that on the day before the murder, the victim told him that he and Defendant Peterson were going to have a dice rematch the next day.

The State also called Donovan Wade to testify. Mr. Wade testified that he had previously dealt drugs with the victim and that he routinely bought drugs from the victim. According to Mr. Wade, he was planning to purchase drugs on the night of the murder, and came upon the victim and Defendant Peterson in an alley between two buildings in the Doulton Avenue area of Huntington.3 Mr. Wade stated that the two men were rolling dice in an alley and testified that the victim and Defendant Peterson were the only people he saw in the alley. Mr. Wade testified that the victim was winning the dice game and that Defendant Peterson was losing. Mr. Wade explained that he could tell Defendant Peterson was losing the dice game because "[t]he person was losing is to keep putting money down and the person that wins is picking up the money."

Mr. Wade testified that over the course of "forty-five minutes to an hour" he made three trips to and from the alley where Defendant Peterson and the victim were playing dice and selling drugs. Mr. Wade explained that he made two drug purchases from the victim and one from Defendant Peterson during this time. Mr. Wade stated that he remained in the general Doulton Avenue area after making his third drug purchase. At some point after making his third drug purchase, Mr. Wade observed Defendant Peterson approaching the alley where he and the victim had been playing dice. Mr. Wade testified that Defendant Peterson had two guns "in his side or his pockets." He stated that one gun was black and the other was chrome. Shortly after observing Defendant Peterson returning to the alley where the victim was, Mr. Wade stated that he "heard one gunshot. I took off walking because I figured the police was going to end up coming.... So I started walking down Seventeenth [Street] towards Tenth Avenue. And I was walking slow and looking back, and I seen him [Defendant Peterson] going across the alley.... He ran right back across the way he came from."4

Dr. James Kaplan was called by the State and testified that the victim "suffered a fatal gunshot wound

to his left armpit. That bullet passed through both lungs and his heart and caused fatal bleeding, which caused his death." Dr. Kaplan testified that the estimated time of injury was 7:30 p.m. and the estimated time of death was 7:40 p.m.

On the night of the murder, a motorist driving down the alley near the Doulton Avenue area noticed someone lying in the alley and called the police. Huntington Police Officer Eric Corder received a call at 8:02 or 8:03 p.m. and proceeded to the area. Upon arriving in the area, Officer Corder found the victim's body lying face up, with his pants pulled down around the knee area.5 Corporal Stephen Compton, a Huntington Police Officer serving in the forensic unit, arrived at the crime scene at approximately 8:30 p.m. He testified that he found dice in the crime scene area and one nine millimeter shell casing.

The State called Julie Eplion, a twenty-year-old woman who had dated Defendant Peterson "on and off." Ms. Eplion testified that on the night of the murder, Defendant Peterson called her thirteen times between 7:58 p.m. and 8:16 p.m. Ms. Eplion did not answer her phone because she was "hanging out with friends." Defendant Peterson continued calling until Ms. Eplion answered her phone at 9:06 p.m. In all, Defendant Peterson called Ms. Eplion twenty-five times between 7:58 p.m. and 9:06 p.m. Ms. Eplion stated that Defendant Peterson wanted her to pick him up at a bowling alley and take him to his Cousin Brandon Peterson's house, which was located on Doulton Avenue. Upon arriving at the bowling alley, Ms. Eplion testified that Defendant Peterson was in his Cousin Brandon's car. He exited that car and got into Ms. Eplion's car. Defendant Peterson told Ms. Eplion that he did not want to go to his cousin's house on Doulton Avenue. Ms. Eplion stated that she told Defendant Peterson that there were a "bunch of cops" around Doulton Avenue. She further testified, "whenever I had told him that there were cops over there and he was, like, ‘I know there's cops over there. Somebody has gotten shot over there.’ " Ms. Eplion testified that because Defendant Peterson was acting nervous in the car she asked him what was wrong and "[h]e said he couldn't—didn't want to tell me because he didn't want me to judge him."

While in the car, Defendant Peterson made a number of phone calls to a woman in Columbus, Ohio.6 Ms. Eplion stated that Defendant Peterson was giving the Columbus driver directions to Huntington. The Columbus driver met Ms. Eplion and Defendant Peterson in a McDonald's parking lot in Huntington at approximately 11:30 p.m. that evening. Defendant Peterson exited Ms. Eplion's car and got into the Columbus driver's car. It was undisputed during the trial that the Columbus driver picked Defendant Peterson up on the night of the murder and immediately drove him to Columbus.

The State called U.S. Marshal Craig Martin who testified that he apprehended Defendant Peterson on December 3, 2007, in Columbus, Ohio. Marshal Martin went to Defendant Peterson's workplace in Columbus.7 Upon identifying himself as a law enforcement officer, Marshal Martin testified that Defendant Peterson ran from the building and was apprehended in the parking lot of the business.

The State also called Huntington Police Officer Rocky Johnson who testified that he went to Defendant Peterson's house in Columbus and seized various clothing and footwear from this residence. The State next called Kevin McDowell, an employee of the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory. Mr. McDowell testified that one of the pairs of shoes seized from Defendant Peterson's residence "could have made the impression" of a shoeprint that was found at the murder scene. Mr. McDowell was unable to say, however, that the shoe recovered from Defendant Peterson's Columbus residence was the exact shoe that left the impression at the crime scene.

The defense called two witnesses: Defendant Peterson and his cousin, Brandon Peterson. Brandon Peterson testified that he went bowling with Defendant Peterson on the night of the murder. He testified that they left his residence, located on Doulton Avenue, to go to the bowling alley "between 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m."

Defendant Peterson testified next. He confirmed that he and the victim had been involved in two dice games together. Regarding the first dice game, Defendant Peterson agreed that he and the victim and Antonio Smith had played dice at Erin Stolze's house three nights before the murder. He disputed Mr. Smith's testimony that he lost four to five hundred dollars. Instead, Defendant Peterson testified that he won a couple of dollars during...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Jeremy S.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 8 Junio 2020
    ...(1972). However, we apply this doctrine " ‘sparingly’ and only where the errors are apparent from the record." State v. Peterson , 239 W. Va. 21, 35, 799 S.E.2d 98, 112 (2017) (quoting Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc. , 194 W. Va. 97, 118, 459 S.E.2d 374, 395 (1995) ). With these ......
  • Peterson v. Ames, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-0126
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 4 Mayo 2020
    ...Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of Petitioner's motion for a new trial in a divided opinion. State v. Peterson, 799 S.E.2d 98 (W. Va. 2017). The majority reasoned that Brady did not provide an avenue for relief, as the allegedly suppressed evidence was "otherwis......
  • State v. Charles B.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 16 Noviembre 2018
    ...judicial proceedings.' United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 (1985)." State v. Peterson, 239 W. Va. 21, 32, 799 S.E.2d 98, 109 (2017). Based upon petitioner's argument, we cannot find that the circuit court committed plain error in its consideration ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT