State v. Satterfield
Decision Date | 13 April 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 22374,22374 |
Citation | 457 S.E.2d 440,193 W.Va. 503 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Shawn SATTERFIELD, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
1. Syl. pt. 3, State v. Young, 166 W.Va. 309, 273 S.E.2d 592 (1980), holding modified on a different ground by State v. Julius, 185 W.Va. 422, 408 S.E.2d 1 (1991).
2. A suicide note may be admissible pursuant to W.Va.R.Evid. 804(b)(2) as a dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. In order for a statement found in a suicide note to be admissible as a dying declaration the following must occur: the statement must have been made when the declarant was under the belief that his death was imminent, and the dying declaration must concern the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believes to be his impending death.
3. Once a trial judge determines that a statement falls within the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule found in W.Va.R.Evid. 804(b)(2), then it must be determined whether the evidence is relevant pursuant to W.Va.R.Evid. 401 and 402 and, if so, whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice pursuant to W.Va.R.Evid. 403. The statement is admissible only after the trial judge determines that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
4. Syl. pt. 10, State v. Young, 173 W.Va. 1, 311 S.E.2d 118 (1983).
5. Syl. pt. 1, State v. White, 171 W.Va. 658, 301 S.E.2d 615 (1983).
6. " ' Syl. pt. 1, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).
7. " Syl. pt. 2, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).
8. "One of the inquiries on a motion for a change of venue should not be whether the community remembered or heard the facts of the case, but whether the jurors had such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt or innocence of the defendant." Syl. pt. 3, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).
9. " Syl. pt. 7, State v. Neider, 170 W.Va. 662, 295 S.E.2d 902 (1982).
10. Syllabus point 3, O'Neal v. Peake Operating Co., 185 W.Va. 28, 404 S.E.2d 420 (1991).
11. "Where a State witness violates a sequestration order and is permitted to testify, the question on appeal is whether the witness's violation of the order and the ensuing testimony had a prejudicial effect on the defendant's case." Syl. pt. 4, State v. Steele, 178 W.Va. 330, 359 S.E.2d 558 (1987).
12. " Syl. pt. 1, State v. King, 173 W.Va. 164, 313 S.E.2d 440 (1984).
13. Syl pt. 2, State v. King, 173 W.Va. 164, 313 S.E.2d 440 (1984).
14. " Syl. pt. 4, State v. Gum, 172 W.Va. 534, 309 S.E.2d 32 (1983).
This case is before this Court upon the appeal of Shawn Satterfield from the October 7, 1993 order of the Circuit Court of Ritchie County which sentenced him to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy. For reasons set forth below, we affirm the order of the circuit court.
The appellant and his half-brother, Brian Vincent, were charged with murdering Billy Harper, a retired public school bus driver, during the late night hours of January 22, 1993. The facts surrounding the murder are contradictory and unclear.
The strongest evidence against the appellant was provided by Glen Thomas and Bucky Moore, who were initially questioned by the police after witnesses stated that they saw Glen Thomas' car in the vicinity of the victim's home on the night of the murder. Thomas and Moore agreed to tell the police everything they knew about the murder if they would be granted immunity from prosecution for their involvement in the crime. Eventually, the trial court did grant immunity to Moore and Thomas for their testimony at trial.
At trial, Moore and Thomas testified that they gave the appellant and Brian Vincent a ride to the vicinity of the victim's home. The appellant or Brian Vincent indicated that they were planning to rob the victim and anticipated having to hit the victim on the head during the robbery. When the appellant and Brian Vincent got out of the car, they had an ax handle with them. The ax handle had originally belonged to Thomas, but Thomas alleged that the ax handle was removed from his car by Brian Vincent prior to the incident. Moore and Thomas maintained that they were to return to pick up the appellant and Brian Vincent later in the evening.
When Moore and Thomas returned to pick up the appellant and Brian Vincent, they were unable to locate them. Subsequently, Moore and Thomas alleged that when they saw the appellant and Brian Vincent, the two admitted that when robbing the victim, Brian Vincent had told the victim the appellant's name. Therefore, the appellant and Brian Vincent took turns striking the victim with the ax handle until he died. The appellant and Brian Vincent also allegedly told Moore and Thomas that they took the victim's billfold, which was never recovered, and a .22 rifle, which they hid behind a school bus stop in the vicinity. Evidently, the billfold was burned in the appellant's father's wood stove.
During a search of the area after the murder, the ax handle, which was wrapped in the victim's plaid flannel jacket, and the .22 rifle, were recovered. Forensic reports state that the hair on the ax handle was consistent with the victim's hair.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Phillips
...is no provision excusing hearsay evidence from meeting the basic requirement of relevancy for admission. In State v. Satterfield, 193 W.Va. 503, 512, 457 S.E.2d 440, 449 (1995), this Court stated that even if a trial court finds an extrajudicial statement is admissible under our hearsay "[t......
-
State ex. rel. Roger L. Bowers v. McBride
...charging felony murder or reflecting that murder occurred during one of the enumerated underlying offenses. State v. Satterfield, 193 W. Va. 503, 457 S.E.2d 440 (1995); State v. Justice, 191 W. Va. 261, 445 S.E.2d 202 (1994); State v. Young, 173 W. Va. 1, 311 S.E.2d 118(1983). There is a di......
-
State Va. v. Black
...384, 242 S.E.2d 464 (1978).' Syl. pt. 1, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).” Syllabus point 6, State v. Satterfield, 193 W.Va. 503, 457 S.E.2d 440 (1995). 7. A claim of a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), presents mixed ques......
-
State Va. v. Kaufman
...evidence may nevertheless be excluded when the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value. See State v. Satterfield, 193 W.Va. 503, 512, 457 S.E.2d 440, 449 (1995). See also Syl. Pt. 10, TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. 187 W.Va. 457, 460, 419 S.E.2d 870, 873 (......