State v. Rexrode

• Decision Date: 08 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-0498,18-0498
• Citation: 844 S.E.2d 73
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Michael Shane REXRODE, Defendant Below, Petitioner

844 S.E.2d 73

STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent

v.Michael Shane REXRODE, Defendant Below, Petitioner

No. 18-0498

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: May 20, 2020

Filed: June 8, 2020

Jerry D. Moore, Esq., Jared T. Moore, Esq., The Moore Law Firm, PLLC, Franklin, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner.

Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Mary Beth Niday, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth Grant, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent.

ARMSTEAD, Chief Justice:

Petitioner Michael Shane Rexrode was found guilty of one count of domestic battery of his wife in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-2-28(a) (2014) following a jury trial in the Magistrate Court of Grant County, West Virginia. By order entered May 24, 2018, the Circuit Court of Grant County affirmed this conviction and ordered that Petitioner serve the previously imposed sentence of ten days in jail.

On appeal to this Court, Petitioner raises numerous assignments of error. The primary issue presented is whether law enforcement officers’ entry into Petitioner's home was reasonable under the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement. U.S. Const., amend. IV ; W.Va. Const., art. III, sec. 6. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that it was. As such, this Court finds no error and affirms the circuit court's order.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2017, at approximately 8:00 p.m., law enforcement officers responded to a 911 call from a third party who advised that that there was a domestic dispute underway at Petitioner's home.¹ The caller reported that Petitioner's wife, Suzette Rexrode, stated she was struck by her husband, Petitioner, and suffered an injury to her eye.

Corporal S.A. Nazelrod of the West Virginia State Police arrived at Petitioner's home in Maysville, West Virginia, at 8:26 p.m. Shortly thereafter, Deputies Rohrbaugh and Crites of the Grant County Sheriff's Department, arrived at the scene. As they approached the home, officers did not hear the couple arguing or shouting inside. Corporal Nazelrod knocked on the door and when Mrs. Rexrode greeted them, the officers immediately noticed that her right eye was bloody; specifically, blood was forming on the sclera.² She also had bloody injuries to her right arm. Mrs. Rexrode appeared "very visibly upset" but claimed that she injured herself on farm equipment earlier that day. Officers entered the home in order to locate Petitioner, secure the scene, separate the couple, and investigate the matter.

It is undisputed that officers did not have permission to enter the home, nor did they have either an arrest or search warrant. Corporal Nazelrod located Petitioner in the bedroom, lying on the bed under the covers. The officer told Petitioner to show his hands, to ensure Petitioner was not holding a weapon. When he complied, Cpl. Nazelrod noticed blood on Petitioner's hands. Petitioner was handcuffed and taken into the kitchen for questioning.

Meanwhile, Dep. Rohrbaugh stepped outside of the home with Mrs. Rexrode and asked her what happened. Mrs. Rexrode gave a statement to the officers at approximately 8:40 p.m., wherein she stated that Petitioner "jabbed me in the face with his fingers and fist." When asked what happened to her arm, Mrs. Rexrode replied: "He had me on the living room floor, holding me down and hitting me in the head."

Both Petitioner and Mrs. Rexrode were intoxicated that evening. Corporal Nazelrod chose not to interview Petitioner due to his level of intoxication.

The State filed a criminal complaint against Petitioner for one count of domestic battery. The criminal complaint, signed by Cpl. Nazelrod, stated:

The defendant was detained for officer safety. The undersigned did then interview the victim, observing and photographing the injury to her eye, and an injury to her right arm, which appeared to be caused by being grabbed forcibly or restrained. The victim stated her and the defendant got into a verbal argument, and he proceeded to force her to the floor in the living room, and hold her down, striking her in the face with his fist, and jabbing at her eye with his fingers. The undersigned also observed a broken [I]ndian figurine in the living room where the incident occurred.

The victim had to be transported to Grant [M]emorial Hospital for treatment due to her eye injury.

The defendant was taken into custody and transported to Potomac Highlands Regional Jail to await arraignment.

Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge, alleging that his warrantless arrest was unlawful. He also filed motions to suppress all evidence seized as a result of law enforcement's entry into the home, contending that the entry was illegal. In June 2017, the magistrate court held a suppression hearing, during which Cpl. Nazelrod testified that he entered Petitioner's home "[f]or officer safety, also for – just to protect her and the other officers that were on scene." Ultimately, the magistrate court denied all of Petitioner's motions, finding that officers "not only acted lawfully, but appropriately, under the circumstances."

Petitioner's magistrate court jury trial was held in August 2017. The State presented testimony from Cpl. Nazelrod and Dep. Rohrbaugh concerning their arrival at Petitioner's home and investigation. Deputy Rohrbaugh testified that when Mrs. Rexrode "first came to the door she was very visibly upset and more or less distraught. She was kinda shaking as she spoke with us, and obviously I could see an injury to her eye at that point in time. That's whenever we first made initial contact with her[.]." The State introduced photographs that depicted Mrs. Rexrode's injuries, Petitioner's hands, and the broken figurine. The State also introduced Mrs. Rexrode's statement that was given to the officers that evening, wherein she reported that Petitioner "had her on the ground, more or less beating on her."

The State also called Mrs. Rexrode as a witness.³ When asked about her statement to law enforcement on the evening in question, Mrs. Rexrode claimed it was "a lie." She stated that her injuries were caused by a fall in the house because she was "drunk." Contrary to her prior statement to law enforcement, Mrs. Rexrode testified that she hurt her eye when she fell over a step and landed on the figurine. After the magistrate court denied Petitioner’ motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case-in-chief, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and denied the allegations against him. He explained that he had blood on his hand that evening because of an injury sustained while working earlier that day. Petitioner also stated that while his wife was intoxicated during the evening in question, he had consumed only one beer. Ultimately, the jury found Petitioner guilty of domestic battery and he was sentenced to ten days in jail.

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the circuit court, which held a hearing in January 2018 and thereafter entered an order denying Petitioner's appeal on May 24, 2018.⁴ The circuit court found that the officers’ entry into Petitioner's home fell under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, the officers acted reasonably.⁵ The circuit court found no merit to Petitioner's other assignments of error.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal, Petitioner argues that (1) the lower courts erred in finding the officers’ entry into his home, and his subsequent arrest, fell within the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement; (2) the magistrate court erred in consulting ex parte with the circuit court about an evidentiary issue during trial; (3) the magistrate court erred in forcing the victim to testify; (4) the State made prejudicial comments during closing argument; (5) the magistrate court erred in failing to record voir dire; (6) a State witness testified to inadmissible hearsay regarding the 911 call; (7) the circuit court failed to render a decision within the applicable timeframe; and (8) cumulative error. These assignments of error involve various legal principles and differing standards of review. Thus, we will address the applicable standard of review within the discussion regarding the assigned error.⁶

III. DISCUSSION

A. Emergency Doctrine Exception to the Warrant Requirement

"It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980).⁷ This Court has held:

"Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution⁸ —subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. The exceptions are jealously and carefully drawn, and there must be a showing by those who seek exemption that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative." Syllabus Point 1, State v. Moore, 165 W. Va. 837, 272 S.E.2d 804 (1980), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Julius, 185 W. Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991).

Syl. Pt. 20, State v. Ladd, 210 W. Va. 413, 557 S.E.2d 820 (2001) (footnote added).

The presumption of unreasonableness, however, is not absolute. A warrantless entry by law enforcement may be justified by investigative exigencies or emergencies. Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) ; see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-394, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) ("the exigencies of the situation [may] make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.").⁹

"One exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury." Brigham City , 547 U.S. at 403,...