State v. Schofield
| Decision Date | 28 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 16245,16389,s. 16245 |
| Citation | 331 S.E.2d 829,175 W.Va. 99 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. Kathy J. SCHOFIELD. Kathy J. SCHOFIELD v. W. Joseph McCOY, Commissioner of West Virginia Department of Corrections. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An affidavit stating only that the victim was "shot to death" does not enable a magistrate to find sufficient probable cause to issue an arrest warrant.
2. The appellant's arrest pursuant to an invalid arrest warrant at the home of a third party was nevertheless permissible because the arresting officers had independent, reasonable grounds to believe that she had committed a felony.
3. A request for a pretrial competency hearing under W.Va.Code 27-6A-2 [1979] that was made for the first time on the date of the trial's commencement was properly denied because previous medical and psychiatric examinations were unanimous in affirming the defendant's competency to stand trial.
4. Before an insanity instruction can be given in a criminal case the defendant must present some competent evidence on the subject; the defendant cannot ask the jury simply to consider, as an alternative to guilt or innocence, that the defendant could have been insane at the time of the alleged crime.
5. Whether to grant a mistrial because of allegedly prejudicial photographs depicting the trial that appeared in local newspapers is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
6. The trial court's sentencing instruction was valid where it stated that the defendant, upon a first-degree murder conviction without recommendation of mercy, would be sentenced to prison for life even though the trial court omitted the phrase "without possibility of parole" since the instruction was not misleading and counsel made no objection to the instruction.
Barbara H. Fleisher, Preiser & Wilson, Charleston, for Kathy J. Schofield.
Silas B. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for State and McCoy.
Kathy Schofield's appeal and writ of habeas corpus are consolidated in this opinion because both address the validity of her conviction. For the reasons given below, the appellant's appeal is denied and her writ of habeas corpus is likewise dismissed.
James Preston Gill was shot in the back by a .22-caliber bullet on the night of 2-3 May 1982. A forensic pathologist testified that the bullet was fired from a distance of two feet or more and that both the victim and the murderer were standing at the time. The body was discovered in the afternoon hours of 3 May 1982 just inside the slightly ajar door of the victim's apartment above Buffington's Bar in Parkersburg.
James Gill was a regular patron of the establishment over which he lived. On 2 May 1982, Miss Kathy Jo Schofield, a young unwed mother, was seen at the bar with the victim and was overheard offering him her "company." (The appellant later explained that this remark was a reference to prostitution services.) Apparently the victim accepted her offer, for a few minutes later he left the bar followed shortly by Miss Schofield. Miss Schofield reappeared at Buffington's later that night and had a few beers. Sometime after midnight, she summoned a taxi, dined at a restaurant, and hired another cab to take her home.
As a result of inquiries made after Mr. Gill's corpse was discovered, the Parkersburg police sought out Miss Schofield believing that she was the last person to have been with the victim. The police learned that she lived with her parents and child in a trailer outside Belpre in Washington County, Ohio. The Parkersburg police relayed their desire to interview Miss Schofield to the sheriff of Washington County and the Belpre police department. Ohio law enforcement officers subsequently appeared at Miss Schofield's trailer at midmorning on 3 May 1982 and told her that two Parkersburg detectives wished to speak with her at the Belpre City Hall. The appellant consented to speak to the West Virginia authorities although she testified that she knew she was under no obligation to do so. (The officers explained to her that she did not have to accompany them.)
The Parkersburg detectives asked Miss Schofield to cross the Ohio River and speak with them in Parkersburg. The detectives explained to Miss Schofield that she was not under arrest, did not have to answer any questions, and that she was free to leave whenever she wished. The appellant replied that she understood and agreed to come with the officers to West Virginia but wished to return to her baby as soon as possible.
Miss Schofield learned that she was a suspect in the shooting death of James Gill. Her Miranda rights were read to her with care one line at a time. She read and signed the Miranda form and a waiver that she knew that she could remain silent. Miss Schofield later testified that she was uncertain that she really was free to get up and leave.
Miss Schofield admitted during questioning that she knew the victim and had been with him at Buffington's and in his apartment on the night of Mr. Gill's death. At one point the detectives asked her if she had shot James Gill to which she laughed and answered affirmatively that she had "shot him to see what it was like to kill someone," but then quickly added she was only joking. When one of the detectives suggested that she should consider her baby daughter's future, the appellant, infuriated, abruptly concluded the conversation and immediately took a cab to Belpre.
During the afternoon of 4 May 1982, Detective Douglass of the Parkersburg Police Department acquired a warrant to search Kathy's trailer. Based on the West Virginia warrant an Ohio search warrant was subsequently issued in Marietta, Ohio and taken to the Schofields' trailer by a deputy of the Washington County sheriff's department. This detective was accompanied by four members of the Parkersburg Police Department. Since no one was then at home, the officers waited until Miss Schofield's parents were summoned to the trailer who, at 5:30 p.m., admitted the officers and directed them to their daughter's room. Two wallets containing James Gill's identification and effects, the .22-caliber revolver (all hidden under blankets in a dresser), as well as a purse containing .22-caliber shells were found in the appellant's room. The validity and fruits of this search warrant are not disputed on appeal.
Anticipating that the search of the Schofield trailer would incriminate the appellant, the Parkersburg Police Department had a patrolman standing by in Parkersburg waiting for an order to obtain an arrest warrant. Immediately after the trailer's search this patrolman was instructed telephonically to procure a warrant. Although ample probable cause existed, the patrolman did not relay adequate information to the Wood County magistrate to establish why the police believed they had "probable cause" to arrest Miss Schofield. Inexplicably the officer simply stated that Kathy Schofield murdered James Gill because: "James Gill was shot to death." He later testified that he affirmed under oath that the information contained in the complaint was correct and that the magistrate perfunctorily issued the arrest warrant without further ado.
Thereafter the Parkersburg Police Department telephoned the Washington County sheriff's office and told them that a warrant for Miss Schofield's arrest had been executed in West Virginia and requested that Miss Schofield be arrested and held pending extradition. Based on this information, the Ohio authorities arrested the appellant in one of her brothers' trailers. An Ohio deputy testified at trial that he gained entry into the trailer as follows:
I knocked on the door, a male came to the door, invited me in, I told him I was looking for Kathy. He stated Kathy was in the trailer. After I entered the trailer I observed Kathy sitting in the chair. I knew it was Kathy because she had identified herself as Kathy Schofield and also Captain Birch knew her and identified her as being Kathy Schofield.
I told her that I had a teletype and that she was being charged in West Virginia with murder and I was going to arrest her on a fugitive from justice charge. She was handcuffed. She was very upset and I took her out of the trailer.
After some initial excitement, with appellant in hysterics on seeing her baby in a detective's arms and one of her brothers taking a blow at an arresting officer, appellant calmed down. Miss Schofield testified that, upon being read her constitutional rights, she had understood her right to be silent but stated she was unaware that a lawyer could be provided to her without charge. Her mother, however, reiterated her right to remain silent until she had a lawyer.
Nonetheless, Miss Schofield began to tell the officers "what happened" on the night of Mr. Gill's death. The officers testified that she spoke spontaneously and was not answering questions. At trial, however, Miss Schofield insisted that she only spoke in order to get the officers "off my back." She admitted that she knew that she could remain silent.
Miss Schofield told the investigating officers that she and "Buddy," a friend of hers, had planned to rob Mr. Gill and it was "Buddy" who ultimately shot the victim. No "Buddy" was ever found however, despite a thorough search of the neighborhood by the police. Nor had anybody else ever met this alleged accomplice.
Miss Schofield later at trial admitted that she fabricated the "Buddy" story. In fact, she stated, she shot Mr. Gill herself but did so in self-defense and in response to his sexual advances. Miss Schofield testified that she was "emotionally upset" when she killed the victim and that she had been abused by Mr. Gill in the past. Furthermore, on the night in question, she testified, she was under the influence of drugs and Mr. Gill goaded her by calling her a coward. She fired the revolver once "just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Delottinville
......2003) ; United States v. Underwood , 717 F.2d 482, 486 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc) (Skopil, J., dissenting); State v. Schofield , 175 W.Va. 99, 331 S.E.2d 829, 841 (1985) (McGraw, J., dissenting). In addition, key federal circuit cases on this issue were decided well before ......
-
State v. Barrow, 16370
...... State v. Davis, 178 W.Va. 87, 357 S.E.2d 769 (1987); State v. Schofield, 175 W.Va. 99, 331 S.E.2d 829 (1985). The federal courts under their mental competency statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4244 (1949), hold that a competency ......
-
State v. Davis, 25812.
......Schofield, 175 W.Va. 99, 331 S.E.2d 829 (1985) . . This Court is not only concerned with defense counsel's failure to object to the ......
-
State v. Forshey, 18549
......564 (1980)." . 2 We have adopted this doctrine. Marano v. Holland, 179 W.Va. 156, 366 S.E.2d 117 (1988); State v. Schofield, 175 W.Va. 99, 331 S.E.2d 829 (1985); State v. Aldridge, 172 W.Va. 170, 304 S.E.2d 671 (1983); Blackburn v. State, 218 W.Va. 96, 290 S.E.2d 22 ......
-
Toward the decentralization of criminal procedure: state constitutional law and selective disincorporation.
...State, 739 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Text Crim. App. 1987) (en bane); State v. Holeman, 693 P.2d 89, 91 (Wash. 1985) (en bane); State v. Schofield, 331 S.E.2d 829, 834 (W. Va. 1985), State v. Boggess, 340 N.W.2d 516, 520 (Wis. 1983); Laasch v. State, 267 N.W.2d 278, 281 (Wis. 1978); Brown v. State, 73......