State v. York, 13-1312

• Decision Date: 24 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 13-1312,13-1312
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Amanda York, Defendant Below, Petitioner

State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Amanda York, Defendant Below, Petitioner

No. 13-1312

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

April 24, 2015

(Webster County 13-F-13)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Amanda York, by counsel Daniel R. Grindo, appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Webster County, entered November 14, 2013, that denied her motion for a new trial and sentenced her to a term of incarceration following her conviction on three counts of voluntary manslaughter and one count of conspiracy to conceal a deceased human body. Respondent, the State of West Virginia, by counsel Christopher S. Dodrill, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order.

This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On June 27, 2012, petitioner and an acquaintance, Denise Coates, quarreled. Later that afternoon, Denise Coates, Lamar Allen, and Dustin Brown drove to the residence of petitioner and her husband, Michael York. At some point after the three visitors arrived, petitioner's husband went inside his residence, retrieved a four-round .30-06 rifle, and returned outside. He then shot Lamar Allen in the chest, shot Denise Coates once in the chest and twice in the back, and shot Dustin Brown once in the side and twice in the back. Petitioner's husband reloaded his four-round rifle at least once during the shootings. All three victims died at the scene. Thereafter, petitioner and her husband attempted to conceal Dustin Brown's body by tying it to the back of an all-terrain vehicle with an extension cord and dragging it up a hill. However, the plan failed when the extension cord broke. Petitioner's husband then fled the scene in his car.

After her husband left the scene, petitioner called 911 and told the authorities, "I shot some people. . . .Yeah they were coming in and I couldn't stop 'em and it was me and the baby here." The 911 operator contacted the police and then called petitioner to check on her and her child, and to let her know that police officers were on their way. During this second call, the 911 operator asked petitioner whether she had a gun during the shootings. Petitioner replied, "Yes I had a gun when I, I came out of the house."

Petitioner made two more statements to police after they arrived at her house. During the first of these statements, petitioner said she had been in an altercation with Denise Coates earlier in the day:

Okay well I was over at our friends . . . , me and my husband and my daughter were. And we were visiting. And[,] all of a sudden Denise [Coates] came over ah, she was getting something . . . . Um, and she just started going off at me. And I mean just right up in my face and in my husband's face and I kept telling her to just go, we're not fighting, this is a friends, and ya, da, ya, and I didn't think any more about it you know when I came home I was just thinking why were they mad at me in the first place.

Petitioner added that when the three victims arrived at her home, she and her five-year-old daughter were home alone and she feared for their safety so she grabbed a .30-06 rifle, confronted the victims outside her home, and shot them in self-defense. However, during petitioner's second statement to the police, she admitted that her husband had been the shooter and that she had stood behind him during the shooting.

Petitioner's husband was arrested late on the night of the shootings. When questioned, he told the police that, "My wife never did nothing. I shot those people. Let my wife go." He also admitted that petitioner was armed with a shotgun when he shot the victims.

On January 16, 2013, petitioner was indicted on three counts of murder in the first degree in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-2-1, one count of concealment of a deceased human body in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-2-5a, one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-10-31, and one count of conspiracy to conceal a human body in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-10-31.

Although the murders occurred in Webster County, the trial was moved to Braxton County when attempts to seat a jury in Webster County failed. Petitioner and her husband were tried together. During a break in their five-day trial in September of 2012, the trial judge saw a juror assigned to the case, Lana Bowman, speak to one of the State's witnesses, Deputy Jack Cutlip, in the hallway of the courthouse. After the break, the judge informed the parties that,

As I was leaving the courthouse for lunch, I observed one of our jurors—I don't even know the juror's name, having a conversation with the witness, [Deputy] Jack Cutlip. It appeared to me, just from my observations, that [Juror Bowman] initiated the conversation. I didn't hear anything other than, "Are you related to Rick Cutlip" or words to that effect and I walked up to the juror and said, "You're a juror on this case?" She said, "Yes." I said, "You're not supposed to be having any conversations with the witness." She said, "Well, we weren't talking about the case." I said, "Well, no conversations." It stopped.

The court then allowed counsel to question Deputy Cutlip and Juror Bowman. The Deputy testified as follows:

As I was coming down the steps, [Juror Bowman] was standing there at the wall and she asked me if my brother was Rick Cutlip. And I told her, I said, "I have a brother Rick Cutlip, but I'm not sure it's the same one." She said, "Well, he taught high school in Braxton County." I said, "That's the wrong one." And of course, that is when [the trial judge] came down the hall.

Juror Bowman testified that, "It was my fault. I asked him if he was related to Rick Cutlip because Rick is from Webster County and that's all." Juror Bowman confirmed that she and Deputy Cutlip did not "have any conversation of any nature about this case." Petitioner then moved to strike Juror Bowman from the jury. The court took the motion under advisement, and later denied it on the ground that there was no communication between the two regarding the case; the communication was initiated by the juror, not the witness; and the conversation took place in a hallway, not in a private area. Juror Bowman later became the jury foreperson.

Also during trial, the court questioned the medical examiner, who testified for the State, as follows:

THE COURT: Doctor, just for the record, your opinions here today are within a reasonable degree of medical certainty or pathological certainty; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor

THE COURT: Okay. Which gunshot wound to Dustin Brown do you believe occurred first, the gunshot wounds from the back to the front or through the side?

THE WITNESS: The sequence of the gunshot wounds, I cannot testify to.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I do not know which one was first and which one was second.

THE COURT: All right. Now, in regards to Denise Coates, the entry wound was from the back. Does that indicate that her back was towards the shooter?

THE WITNESS: This I don't know. I cannot say.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, if it's an entrance wound, the shooter's got to be somewhere behind the victim, does he not?

THE WITNESS: Could you please repeat your question of me?

THE COURT; Okay. Denise Coates had—she had two wounds?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

THE COURT: One wound—entrance wound— THE WITNESS: As a matter of fact, three wounds. One of them grazed.

THE COURT: Right. Okay. One of those wounds—entrance wounds[—]was in the back area?

THE WITNESS: That's right. In the left.

THE COURT: So it would indicate that the shooter was somewhere behind her?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

THE COURT: And, likewise, with Dustin Brown, one of his entrance wounds was from the back area—was in the back area?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

THE COURT: Which would indicate that the shooter was in the rear of him?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

THE COURT: Did my question raise any questions?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: No. Your Honor,

THE COURT: May this witness be excused?

THE PROSECUTOR: He may, Your Honor,

THE COURT: Is there objection?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: No objection.

THE COURT: You're excused and free to go. Thank you very much.

The jury found petitioner guilty on three counts of voluntary manslaughter and one count of conspiracy to conceal a deceased human body. The jury acquitted petitioner on the count of conspiracy to commit murder.

The circuit court heard petitioner's post-trial motions on November 1, 2013. By order entered November 14, 2013, the circuit court denied petitioner's motion for a new trial and sentenced petitioner to fifteen years in prison for each of the three voluntary manslaughter convictions and one to five years in prison for conspiring to conceal Dustin Brown's body. The circuit court ordered that all terms be served consecutively.

Petitioner now appeals her convictions and sentences.

In reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a two-pronged deferential standard of review. We review the rulings of the circuit court concerning a new trial and its conclusion as to the existence of reversible error under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.

Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Vance, 207 W. Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000).

Petitioner's initial argument is based on her claim that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial for the jury to find that she aided and abetted her husband in shooting the three victims. She therefore claims that...