State v. White

• Decision Date: 07 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–1336.,11–1336.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Richard A. WHITE, Defendant Below, Petitioner.

231 W.Va. 270

744 S.E.2d 668

STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent

v.Richard A. WHITE, Defendant Below, Petitioner.

No. 11–1336.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 17, 2013.

Decided June 7, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

1. “ ‘Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.’ Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Paynter, 206 W.Va. 521, 526 S.E.2d 43 (1999).

2. “To trigger application of the ‘plain error’ doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Syl. Pt. 7, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).

3. “Under the ‘plain error’ doctrine, ‘waiver’ of error must be distinguished from ‘forfeiture’ of a right. A deviation from a rule of law is error unless there is a waiver. When there has been a knowing and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right, there is no error and the inquiry as to the effect of a deviation from the rule of law need not be determined. By contrast, mere forfeiture of a right-the failure to make timely assertion of the right-does not extinguish the error. In such a circumstance, it is necessary to continue the inquiry and to determine whether the error is ‘plain.’ ” Syl. Pt. 8, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).

4. “ ‘ “The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).’ Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Juntilla, 227 W.Va. 492, 711 S.E.2d 562 (2011).” Syl. Pt. 8, State v. Stone, 229 W.Va. 271, 728 S.E.2d 155 (2012).

5. “ ‘ “A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The evidence need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [ ] Credibility determinations are for a jury and not an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Syl. Pt. 3, in part, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).’ Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Juntilla, 227 W.Va. 492, 711 S.E.2d 562 (2011).” Syl. Pt. 9, State v. Stone, 229 W.Va. 271, 728 S.E.2d 155 (2012).

6. “ ‘Once there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt that the killing resulted from the defendant acting in self-defense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.’ Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Kirtley, 162 W.Va. 249, 252 S.E.2d 374 (1978).” Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Harden, 223 W.Va. 796, 679 S.E.2d 628 (2009).

7. “ ‘It is peculiarly within the province of the jury to weigh the evidence upon the question of self-defense, and the verdict of a jury adverse to that defense will not be set aside unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.’ Syllabus point 5, State v. McMillion, 104 W.Va. 1, 138 S.E. 732 (1927), [ overruled on other grounds, State v. Harden, 223 W.Va. 796, 679 S.E.2d 628 (2009) ].” Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Whittaker, 221 W.Va. 117, 650 S.E.2d 216 (2007).

8. “The jury is the trier of the facts and in performing that duty it is the sole judge as to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Bailey, 151 W.Va. 796, 155 S.E.2d 850 (1967).

9. “Where there has been an unlawful homicide by shooting and the State produces evidence that the homicide was a result of malice or a specific intent to kill and was deliberate and premeditated, this is sufficient to support a conviction for first degree murder.” Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191, 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982).

10. “Although premeditation and deliberation are not measured by any particular period of time, there must be some period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing, which indicates the killing is by prior calculation and design. This means there must be an opportunity for some reflection on the intention to kill after it is formed.” Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).

11. “A judgment of conviction will not be set aside because of improper remarks made by a prosecuting attorney to a jury which do not clearly prejudice the accused or result in manifest injustice.” Syl. Pt. 5, State v. Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 456 S.E.2d 469 (1995).

12. “Four factors are taken into account in determining whether improper prosecutorial comment is so damaging as to require reversal: (1) the degree to which the prosecutor's remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) absent the remarks, the strength of competent proof introduced to establish the guilt of the accused; and (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters.” Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 456 S.E.2d 469 (1995).

13. “ ‘A motion for a new trial on the ground of the misconduct of a jury is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which as a rule will not be disturbed on appeal where it appears that defendant was not injured by the misconduct or influence complained of.’ Syllabus Point 7, in part, State v. Johnson, 111 W.Va. 653, 164 S.E. 31 (1932).” Syllabus, State v. Gilliam, 169 W.Va. 746, 289 S.E.2d 471 (1982).

William C. Forbes, Esq., W. Jesse Forbes, Esq., Forbes Law Offices, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner.

Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Scott E. Johnson, Esq., Andrew D. Mendelson, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General, Charleston, WV, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner, Richard A. White, appeals his March 30, 2011, jury conviction of first degree murder in the Circuit Court of Nicholas County, West Virginia. By order entered August 23, 2011, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that multiple trial errors were committed, including instructional and evidentiary errors. The petitioner also argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first degree murder or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. Finally, the petitioner asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based upon prosecutorial and juror misconduct. Upon our consideration of the record in this matter, the briefs and arguments of the parties, the applicable legal authority, and for the reasons discussed below, we affirm the petitioner's conviction.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

It is undisputed that on the night of December 2, 2009, the petitioner went to the home of the victim, Harvey Hersman (hereinafter “Mr. Hersman” or “the victim”), and shot him three times in the head resulting in his death. Shortly thereafter, in the morning hours of December 3, 2009, the petitioner gave a video-taped statement to the police during which he claimed that he had shot Mr. Hersman in self defense.¹ Subsequently, the petitioner was indicted on one count of murder for causing the death of Mr. Hersman.

According to the petitioner, he traveled to the residence of his former wife, Kathy White, with his son, Robert White,² on the evening of December 2, 2009, to retrieve some personal property he had left at her house.³ Upon learning that Ms. White was not at home, the petitioner and his son walked next door to Mr. Hersman's residence. During his video-taped statement, the petitioner told the police that he believed that Mr. Hersman and his former wife were engaged in a long-term love affair.

The petitioner stated that when they arrived at Mr. Hersman's home, his son knocked on the door, but the petitioner enteredthe house alone. In his statement to police, the petitioner initially stated that “when I walked in Harvey Hershman's [sic] house, I did have a knife[,] I did have a weapon;” ⁴ however, during the course of his statement, he also indicated that he gave the knife to his son, explaining that he (the petitioner) had a volatile history with Mr. Hersman, and “I didn't want to look like a threat.” ⁵ According to the petitioner, when he gave the knife to his son, the blade was closed. The petitioner's son, who also gave a statement to the police and testified at trial, stated that the petitioner was not angry or upset when they arrived at Mr. Hersman's house.

Thereafter, an altercation between the petitioner and the victim ensued. Ms. White, who was, in fact, at Mr. Hersman's home at the time, testified at trial ⁶ that as she entered the living room from the den,⁷ she saw the petitioner on top of the victim on the couch in the living room.⁸ She then heard the victim yell for her to get the petitioner off of him. Ms. White fled the home and ran past the petitioner's son, who was standing on the front porch. Ms. White, who testified that she did not see who started the altercation, called 9–1–1.

...