State v. Richardson
Decision Date | 07 March 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1064,16-1064 |
Citation | 811 S.E.2d 260 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Respondent v. Amber Lee RICHARDSON, Petitioner |
Paul R. Cassell, Esq., Cassell & Crewe, P.C., Wytheville, Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner
Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Gordon L. Mowen, II, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for the Respondent
Following a jury trial, Petitioner Amber Lee Richardson ("Defendant Richardson") was convicted of two felony counts—accessory to murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The jury did not recommend mercy and Defendant Richardson was sentenced to an incarceration term of life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant Richardson asserts that the trial court erred by (1) refusing to grant a continuance; (2) refusing to grant relief for an alleged discovery violation; (3) admitting gruesome photographs of the victim; and (4) declining to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of first degree murder. After review, we affirm Defendant Richardson’s convictions and incarceration term of life without the possibility of parole.
In June 2013, Defendant Richardson’s sister called the police and reported that Defendant Richardson’s husband, Danny Ray Richardson ("decedent/husband"), was missing. The police interviewed Defendant Richardson who eventually admitted that she and her paramour, a tattoo artist named Joshua Hubbard ("Mr. Hubbard"),1 had devised a plan to kill her husband. The plan was for Mr. Hubbard to hide under a chicken coop near Defendant Richardson’s house and ambush the decedent when he arrived at the property. Defendant Richardson gave Mr. Hubbard a nine-millimeter pistol that he used to kill her husband. Defendant Richardson admitted that on the day of the murder, she asked her husband to go home to cook dinner for their three young children in order to lure him onto the property by himself. After interviewing Defendant Richardson, the police searched her property and found her husband’s body in the woods near the couple’s house.
One of the central issues in this appeal is whether the circuit court erred by refusing to grant Defendant Richardson’s motion for a third continuance (the court continued the trial twice at the request of Defendant Richardson). Therefore, we begin with a detailed review of the procedural history.
In January 2014, a Monroe County Grand Jury indicted Defendant Richardson on two felony offenses related to her husband’s death: (1) "accessory to murder" in violation of W.Va. Code §§ 61-2-1 [1991] and 61-11-6(a) [2009], and (2) "conspiracy to commit a felony offense: murder" in violation of W.Va. Code § 61-10-31 [1971].
Defendant Richardson was arraigned on January 21, 2014, and entered a not guilty plea. Her trial was scheduled for April 8, 2014. The circuit court ordered that "discovery shall be exchanged by February 18, 2014." The State filed its initial discovery disclosure on February 6, 2014,2 identifying thirty-five items it had provided to counsel3 for Defendant Richardson, including item 35(g) which consisted of "[c]ellular records for the cellular telephones used by [the decedent] and [Defendant Richardson]."
The State also disclosed and identified eleven items that were located in the evidence room of the West Virginia State Police that would be made available to counsel for Defendant Richardson for "inspection and/or photographing" at "the Union Detachment of the West Virginia State Police or at the West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory in Charleston, WV [sic]." These items included certain cellular records recovered from phones belonging to the decedent, Defendant Richardson and Mr. Hubbard, which were described as follows: ("Item 46 CD"). In addition to identifying the item 46 CD which contained all of the information recovered from the cellular phones, the State provided counsel for Defendant Richardson with a paper copy of an 18-page report that included "all of the text messages and phone calls that went to and from [Defendant] Richardson’s phone [during the time it alleged she and Mr. Hubbard conspired] ... between May 31st[2013] and June 3rd[2013]." This 18-page report was provided to counsel for Defendant Richardson on February 6, 2014.
The circuit court held a hearing on March 25, 2014.4 At this hearing, counsel for Defendant Richardson requested that the trial be continued because he "needed more time to review the [discovery] materials provided by the State and to retain experts to assist in the defense." The parties discussed the need for a continuance as follows:
The circuit court granted Defendant Richardson’s motion for a continuance and rescheduled the trial for May 28, 2014.
The circuit court held a status conference on April 21, 2014. During this hearing, counsel for Defendant Richardson told the court that after researching battered woman’s syndrome, he had determined that it was not a viable defense in this case, and, therefore, he did not need to retain an expert. Following this discussion, the circuit court and counsel for Defendant Richardson engaged in the following dialogue:
On May 23, 2014, five days before the trial was scheduled to begin, counsel for Defendant Richardson filed a second motion for a continuance, explaining that "counsel for Defendant is currently on bed rest due to mono and is unable to work until June 2, 2014." The circuit court granted this motion for a continuance and rescheduled the trial on June 10, 2014.
Additionally, the State provided that in its initial discovery disclosure, it identified the item 46 CD containing all of the digital files and information retrieved from
As noted in the State’s initial discovery disclosure, the item 46 CD was kept in the evidence room of the West Virginia State Police and was available for inspection by defense counsel at that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jako
...*5 (W. Va. Nov. 30, 2012) (memorandum decision)).59 Miller , 194 W. Va. at 15, 459 S.E.2d at 126.60 State v. Richardson , 240 W. Va. 310, 319–20 n.13, 811 S.E.2d 260, 269–70 n.13 (2018).61 Syl. Pt. 7, in part, Miller , 194 W. Va. at 3, 459 S.E.2d at 114.62 State v. Davis , 220 W. Va. 590, 5......
-
State v. Scott
...jurisdictions caution that application of the cumulative-error doctrine should be used sparingly, see , e.g., State v. Richardson , 240 W.Va. 310, 811 S.E.2d 260, 272 n.17 (2018), the present case has a strong foothold in the cumulative-error doctrine, see State v. Dolloff , 2012 ME 130, ¶ ......
-
State v. Benny W.
...been developed on this issue. This is an issue that must be developed in a habeas corpus proceeding." State v. Richardson , 240 W. Va. 310, 319 n.13, 811 S.E.2d 260, 269 n.13 (2018). ...
-
State v. James H.
...been developed on this issue. This is an issue that must be developed in a habeas corpus proceeding." State v. Richardson, 240 W. Va. 310, 319-20 n.13, 811 S.E.2d 260, 269-70 n.13 (2018). Thus, we cannot find that the circuit court erred in denying petitioner's post-trial motions on these g......