State v. Smith

Decision Date17 November 2005
Docket NumberNo. 32582.,32582.
Citation624 S.E.2d 474
PartiesSTATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Frederick SMITH, Defendant Below, Appellant.
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. "When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most favorable to the State, as it was the prevailing party below. Because of the highly fact-specific nature of a motion to suppress, particular deference is given to the findings of the circuit court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to hear testimony on the issues. Therefore, the circuit court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error." Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996).

2. ""`The action of a trial court in admitting or excluding evidence in the exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless it appears that such action amounts to an abuse of discretion. Point 10 Syllabus, State v. Huffman, 141 W.Va. 55, 87 S.E.2d 541 (1955)." Syllabus Point 5, Casto v. Martin, 159 W.Va. 761, 230 S.E.2d 722 (1976).' Syllabus Point 5, Grillis v. Monongahela Power Co., 176 W.Va. 662, 346 S.E.2d 812 (1986)." Syl. Pt. 4, Riggle v. Allied Chem. Corp., 180 W.Va. 561, 378 S.E.2d 282 (1989).

3. "This Court is constitutionally obligated to give plenary, independent, and de novo review to the ultimate question of whether a particular confession is voluntary and whether the lower court applied the correct legal standard in making its determination. The holdings of prior West Virginia cases suggesting deference in this area continue, but that deference is limited to factual findings as opposed to legal conclusions." Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247, 452 S.E.2d 50 (1994).

4. "In the trial of a criminal case, the State must prove, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person under custodial interrogation has waived the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present." Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Rissler, 165 W.Va. 640, 270 S.E.2d 778 (1980).

5. "It is not invariably necessary that a person under interrogation make an explicit oral or written statement of waiver in order that it may be properly concluded as a matter of law that the person has waived the right to counsel as guaranteed by W.Va. Const. art. III § 14 and U.S. Const. amend. VI, or has waived the right to remain silent as guaranteed by W.Va. Const. art. III § 5 and U.S. Const. amend. V." Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Rissler, 165 W.Va. 640, 270 S.E.2d 778 (1980).

6. "The State must prove, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that confessions or statements of an accused which amount to admissions of part or all of an offense were voluntary before such may be admitted into the evidence of a criminal case." Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Starr, 158 W.Va. 905, 216 S.E.2d 242 (1975).

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Colleen A. Ford, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for the Appellee.

Aaron S. France, Whiteman & Burdette, P.L.L.C., Fairmont, for the Appellant.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by Mr. Frederick Smith (hereinafter "Appellant") from a conviction in the Circuit Court of Marion County of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Felon. The Appellant was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of one to fifteen years and five years. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the lower court erred by denying his motion to suppress a statement he provided to authorities, contending that he had not waived his right to have an attorney present during the statement. Based upon a thorough review of the record, the arguments of the parties, and applicable precedent, we find that the lower court committed no reversible error, and we consequently affirm the Appellant's conviction.

I. Factual and Procedural History

On April 24, 2001, the Appellant was arrested in the home of an acquaintance, Bertha "Peaches" Horton, after Ms. Horton informed the police that the Appellant possessed drugs and a gun and that she wanted the Appellant removed from her home. While at the home, the police found cocaine, marijuana, and a gun that had been reported stolen. The Appellant was taken to the police station, and his Miranda1 rights were read to him by Sergeant Kelly Moran. Although the Appellant refused to sign a Miranda rights waiver form, he did not indicate that he wished to have a lawyer present. While fingerprinting the Appellant and taking photographs, Officer Raymond Fluharty asked the Appellant whether he knew who owned the gun confiscated by the police. After additional questioning during processing, the Appellant informed Officer Fluharty that the gun belonged to him but that the drugs did not.

The Appellant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Marion County on June 12, 2001. On November 6, 2003, the Appellant filed a motion to suppress the statements he had made to police and a motion to suppress physical evidence. The lower court heard and denied these motions on November 26, 2003. The Appellant was tried by jury in the lower court on December 4 and 5, 2003, and the jury convicted him of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Felon.

On appeal, the Appellant maintains that his eighth grade education and learning disability prevented him from fully understanding his right to have an attorney present during questioning by the police. The Appellant contends that the lower court erred by failing to exclude the statement made by the Appellant to the police after refusing to sign the Miranda rights waiver form. The Appellant further argues that the statement was involuntary and was obtained only after extensive questioning by the police officer. Finally, the Appellant contends that the statement was clearly against the weight of the evidence and should not have been admitted at trial.

II. Standard of Review

This Court is confronted with the issue of whether the lower court committed reversible error in denying the Appellant's motion to suppress statements made during police interrogation. In syllabus point one of State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (1996), this Court explained the proper standard of review of a court's ruling on a motion to suppress, as follows:

When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should construe all facts in the light most favorable to the State, as it was the prevailing party below. Because of the highly fact-specific nature of a motion to suppress, particular deference is given to the findings of the circuit court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to hear testimony on the issues. Therefore, the circuit court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

This Court has also held that "we review de novo questions of law and the circuit court's ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement action." State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595, 600, 461 S.E.2d 101, 106 (1995). In syllabus point four of Riggle v. Allied Chemical Corp., 180 W.Va. 561, 378 S.E.2d 282 (1989), this Court also explained as follows:

"`The action of a trial court in admitting or excluding evidence in the exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless it appears that such action amounts to an abuse of discretion. Point 10 Syllabus, State v. Huffman, 141 W.Va. 55, 87 S.E.2d 541 (1955).' Syllabus Point 5, Casto v. Martin, 159 W.Va. 761, 230 S.E.2d 722 (1976)." Syllabus Point 5, Grillis v. Monongahela Power Co., 176 W.Va. 662, 346 S.E.2d 812 (1986).

On the ultimate question of whether a particular confession was voluntary, this Court explained as follows in syllabus point two of State v. Farley, 192 W.Va. 247, 452 S.E.2d 50 (1994):

This Court is constitutionally obligated to give plenary, independent, and de novo review to the ultimate question of whether a particular confession is voluntary and whether the lower court applied the correct legal standard in making its determination. The holdings of prior West Virginia cases suggesting deference in this area continue, but that deference is limited to factual findings as opposed to legal conclusions.

Utilizing such standards, we analyze the issues presented in this appeal.

III. Discussion
A. Waiver of Miranda Rights

This Court has consistently held that the burden is on the State to establish that the Appellant made an explicit oral or written waiver of his Miranda rights. See State v. Boxley, 201 W.Va. 292, 496 S.E.2d 242 (1997), cert. denied, Boxley v. West Virginia, 525 U.S. 863, 119 S.Ct. 151, 142 L.Ed.2d 123 (1998); State v. Rissler, 165 W.Va. 640, 270 S.E.2d 778 (1980); State v. McNeal, 162 W.Va. 550, 251 S.E.2d 484 (1978). Syllabus point two of Rissler explained: "In the trial of a criminal case, the State must prove, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person under custodial interrogation has waived the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present." 165 W.Va. at 640, 270 S.E.2d at 779.

The Boxley Court stated as follows: "When determining whether a waiver was made, there are three considerations: were the rights given in proper form and substance; did the appellant understand them; and did he waive them?" 201 W.Va. at 297, 496 S.E.2d at 247 (quoting Rissler, 165 W.Va. at 646, 270 S.E.2d at 782 (1980)). In syllabus point one of Rissler, this Court explained as follows:

It is not invariably necessary that a person under interrogation make an explicit oral or written statement of waiver in order that it may be properly concluded as a matter of law that the person has waived the right to counsel as guaranteed by W.Va. Const. art. III § 14 and U.S. Const. amend. VI, or has waived the right to remain silent as guaranteed by W.Va. Const. art. III § 5 and U.S. Const. amend. V.

165 W.Va. at 640, 270 S.E.2d at 779.

The Appellant emphasizes the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • W. Va. Dep't of Transp., Div. of Highways v. Newton
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 7, 2017
  • State ex rel. Dechristopher v. Gaujot
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 16, 2021
    ...of this issue is based on the most fact-driven inquiry possible: the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Smith , 218 W. Va. 127, 132, 624 S.E.2d 474, 479 (2005) ; State v. Milburn , 204 W. Va. 203, 210, 511 S.E.2d 828, 835 (1998) ; State v. Bradshaw , 193 W. Va. 519, 527, 457......
  • State v. Horn
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 21, 2013
    ...under custodial interrogation has waived the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present." State v. Smith, 218 W.Va. 127, 131, 624 S.E.2d 474, 478 (2005) (quoting Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Rissler, 165 W.Va. 640, 270 S.E.2d 778 (1980)). Petitioner's argument on this point rests ......

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