To Mr. Hughart never regained consciousness. At this time, petitioner told Mr. Gann that he hoped Mr. Hughart was dead. About thirty minutes after the altercation, Mr. Gann, petitioner, and another guest, Ashley McGrew, placed Mr. Once they reached Mr. Gann grabbed Mr. Hughart under his arms, pulled him out of the bed of the truck, and placed him in the yard.
A neighbor noticed Mr. Hughart on the ground bleeding and called Hughart was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead. James Kaplan performed an autopsy on Mr. Kaplan noted a scalp laceration that extended to the bone, a skull fracture, contusions on Mr.
Kaplan opined that Mr. The circuit court found that this statement did not meet any hearsay exception, and petitioner was prohibited from introducing it at trial. During trial, petitioner moved to use the complete video of his statement given to law enforcement. This motion was similarly denied on the ground that it lacked relevance. All of these motions were denied. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder, and petitioner was sentenced to forty years of incarceration.
It is from the sentencing order that petitioner appeals. This Court has held that, [i]n reviewing challenges to findings and rulings made by a circuit court, we apply a two-pronged deferential standard of review. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review. Vance, W. Petitioner asserts that the State failed to prove second-degree murder and that petitioner was not acting in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Specifically, petitioner claims that the State failed to prove that petitioner acted with malice. Petitioner argues that the evidence establishes that he was first attacked by Mr.
Hughart and that, in defending himself, he fatally struck Mr. Petitioner also contends that he met his burden of establishing self-defense as there was evidence presented at trial that Mr. Hughart instigated the fight that resulted in his death. Further, petitioner asserts that he had previously been involved in an altercation with Mr. Hughart wherein Mr.
Hughart punched petitioner and knocked several of his teeth out. 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. Guthrie, W. Further, [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.
Clayton, W. Evans, W. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find malice. Petitioner beat Mr. Hughart with a wooden walking stick, even after Mr. Hughart was unresponsive on the ground.
After the beating, petitioner remarked that Mr. Hughart died. Petitioner also claims that he sustained his burden of establishing that he killed Mr.
Hughart in an act of self-defense. Whittaker, W. No apprehension of danger previously entertained will justify the commission of the homicide; it must be an apprehension existing at the time the defendant fired the fatal shot. In this case, we find that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that petitioner failed to establish that he was in immediate apprehension of danger. Although Mr. Petitioner was found to have sustained no injuries during his altercation with Mr.
Hughart, on the other hand, sustained a fatal skull fracture, a fractured rib, and multiple contusions. Gann testified that he had to stop petitioner from further beating Mr. Hughart, who was unconscious by this time.
Petitioner asserts that his videotaped statement to one of the investigating officers should have been played in its entirety and that a statement from Ashley McGrew, a now- deceased witness, should have been admitted. Harris, W. Thus, rulings on the admissibility of evidence. Absent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary. Hughart has died. Petitioner became distraught and began to cry. Petitioner claims, however, that the excluded portion is relevant to the malice element of second-degree murder.
Petitioner also argues that, to the extent it amounts to hearsay, an exception to the prohibition against the use of hearsay applies. Garron, Inc. The Court concluded, in syllabus point 3, that:. These principles have been followed in later cases. Mauck v.
Board of Education v. Spillers, W. Mitter, W. This Court has recognized that under certain circumstances a trial court should allow amendment of a complaint, even where the amendment changes the legal theory of the case and the new legal theory, if advanced independently, would be barred by the statute of limitations at the time of the amendment. The real question is whether the legal theory raised by the amendment grows out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence which gave rise to the initial transaction.
If it does, it will be allowed, provided that injustice will not result from the allowance of relation back and provided the adverse party has received adequate notice of the new claim and has an adequate opportunity to prepare a defense to it. Roberts v. In the case presently before the Court, the appellant sought to amend his complaint against Dennis Owens, Sr. The theory advanced by the appellant's amendment arose out of the same factual context as the appellant's original theory.
The original complaint placed Dennis Owens, Sr. The appellant moved to amend his complaint after the deposition of Dennis Owens, Sr. This Court believes that at the time of the appellant's motion, amendment would have permitted the preservation of the merits of the action, and Dennis Owens, Sr. The Court cannot say that the motion to amend was made at such a time and in such a manner as to result in sudden prejudice against Dennis Owens, Sr.
Under the circumstances, and in view of the policy favoring liberal amendment, this Court believes that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow the appellant to amend his complaint.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County is, therefore, reversed and this case is remanded with directions that the circuit court allow the amendment advanced by the appellant and that the court proceed with trial of the case. Bennett v. Owens Annotate this Case. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. March 27, Laura R. James B.
0コメント