State of West Virginia v. Hayden Damian Drakes ( 2020 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
January 2020 Term
_____________________ FILED
June 12, 2020
No. 18-0207 released at 3:00 p.m.
EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
_____________________ SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Respondent
v.
HAYDEN DAMIAN DRAKES,
Petitioner
___________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cabell County
The Honorable Alfred E. Ferguson, Judge
Criminal Action No. 16-F-344
REVERSED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________
Submitted: February 18, 2020
Filed: June 12, 2020
Matthew Brummond, Esq. Patrick Morrisey, Esq.
Public Defender Services Attorney General
Charleston, West Virginia John M. Masslon II, Esq.
Counsel for the Petitioner Assistant Solicitor General
Caleb A. Ellis, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Charleston, West Virginia
Counsel for the Respondent
JUSTICE WORKMAN delivered the Opinion of the Court.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. “A trial court’s instructions to the jury must be a correct statement of the law
and supported by the evidence. Jury instructions are reviewed by determining whether the
charge, reviewed as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury so they understood the issues
involved and were not mis[led] by the law. A jury instruction cannot be dissected on
appeal; instead, the entire instruction is looked at when determining its accuracy. A trial
court, therefore, has broad discretion in formulating its charge to the jury, so long as the
charge accurately reflects the law. Deference is given to a trial court’s discretion
concerning the specific wording of the instruction, and the precise extent and character of
any specific instruction will be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.” Syl. Pt. 4, State
v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995).
2. Murder in the second degree is the unlawful, intentional killing of another
person with malice, but without deliberation and premeditation. To the extent that State v.
Morrison, 49 W. Va. 210, 38 S.E.481 (1901), State v. Haddox, 166 W. Va. 630, 276 S.E.2d
788 (1981), and their progeny are inconsistent with our holding, they are expressly
overruled.
3. “Gross provocation and heat of passion are not essential elements of
voluntary manslaughter, and, therefore, they need not be proven by evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is intent without malice, not heat of passion, which is the distinguishing
i
feature of voluntary manslaughter.” Syl. Pt. 3, State v. McGuire, 200 W. Va. 823, 490
S.E.2d 912 (1997).
ii
WORKMAN, Justice:
The petitioner, Hayden Damian Drakes, was convicted by a jury on one count
of second-degree murder. He appeals the February 26, 2018, order of the Circuit Court of
Cabell County, West Virginia, denying his Motion to Set Aside the Verdict, and his Motion
for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict, or, Alternatively, Motion for a
New Trial, and sentencing him to a term of forty years in prison, with credit for time served,
and no credit for home confinement. The petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in
instructing the jury that it could convict him of second-degree murder if it found intent to
kill or to cause great bodily injury, and in instructing the jury that provocation and heat of
passion were elements of voluntary manslaughter. Upon careful review of the parties’ brief
and oral arguments, the appendix record, and the applicable law, we find the circuit court
erred in its instructions to the jury for both second-degree murder and voluntary
manslaughter. Therefore, we reverse the petitioner’s conviction and remand the case to the
circuit court for a new trial.
I. Facts
Both parties agree that the facts are largely undisputed regarding an
altercation between the petitioner and Brett Powell, the victim, on March 30, 2016, which
led to the victim’s death and to the petitioner being charged with second-degree murder.
The evidence introduced at trial showed that on March 30, the petitioner and a group of
friends went to Club Deception, a bar located in downtown Huntington, West Virginia, to
celebrate the petitioner’s birthday and the anniversary of two other members of the group,
Joshua and Danielle Spurlock. The group went to the outdoor patio area of the bar. While
1
in this area, they were approached by the victim, Brett Powell, who was a stranger to the
group. The victim approached the group, introduced himself as “Tim,” and asked if anyone
wanted to purchase illegal drugs. The members of the group declined and asked the victim
to leave.
The victim left, but returned a few minutes later. This time, the victim asked
Mrs. Spurlock, who was pregnant, and another member of the group, Liza Slone, if they
wanted to purchase any drugs. Mr. Spurlock informed the victim that he was speaking to
his wife, that she was pregnant, and that the victim needed to leave. Again the victim left,
but then again he returned, after Mr. Spurlock had gone inside the bar to use the restroom.
When one of his friends told him that the victim was back and had again approached his
wife, Mr. Spurlock returned to the group and expressed his frustrations both to his wife and
to the petitioner.
Thereafter, the victim, despite being told that Mrs. Spurlock was pregnant,
came up to her, pushing a drink in her face, shoving it towards her mouth. Mr. Spurlock
testified that he “smacked the cup out of . . . [the victim’s] hand.” Mr. Spurlock testified
that he came “face-to-face” with the victim and told him he needed to leave. Mr. Spurlock
testified that he was ready to fight the victim if the victim did not leave the bar. At this
point, the petitioner stated to Mr. Spurlock that he was going “to try to play peacemaker
and . . . just deescalate the situation” by speaking to the victim.
2
The petitioner found the victim in the patio area of the bar. He told the victim
to leave the group alone, after which, in petitioner’s recounting of events, although his
intent was not to fight or hurt the victim, “[w]e exchanged words.” The victim then
“grabbed” the petitioner, whereupon the petitioner lost his temper and “just started hitting”
the victim. The evidence introduced at trial, which included videos from the bar’s security
cameras, showed the petitioner punched the victim in the face—seven or eight times—until
the victim fell to the ground. When the victim fell, the petitioner stopped hitting him and
left the bar with his friends for another bar down the street.
Another patron in the bar, Danielle Hayes, came out on the patio after the
incident. She noticed that the victim was having a seizure, so she turned him on his side.
When the victim stopped breathing, she performed CPR, remaining with the victim until
emergency personnel arrived. The victim later died. The medical examiner testified that
the cause of the victim’s death was blunt injuries to the head.
The petitioner was arrested in the early morning of the next day in connection
with the assault. The petitioner agreed to be interviewed by Detective Shane Bills with the
Huntington Police Department. Detective Bills testified that during the interview, the
petitioner admitted to hitting the victim, but denied trying hurt him.
On August 17, 2016, the petitioner was indicted on one count of second-
degree murder. The petitioner’s two-day jury trial began on December 19, 2017. At the
3
close of all the evidence, the events giving rise to the two issues presently before the Court
occurred during the instructional phase of the petitioner’s trial. The first issue arose during
the parties’ discussion with the circuit court about the instructions to be given to the jury,
when the State objected to the petitioner’s proposed instruction on second-degree murder.
The instruction, in relevant part, would have informed the jury that: “Murder in the second
degree is the unlawful, intentional killing of another person with malice but without
deliberation or premeditation.” Conversely, the State’s proposed instruction was as
follows: “Murder of the Second Degree is committed feloniously, maliciously, but without
deliberate or premeditated action and with the intent to kill or to cause great bodily harm.”1
(Emphasis added). In similar vein, the State also sought the following instruction, which
was given by the Court:
The Court further instructs the jury that a conviction for
second degree murder cannot be sustained without proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite
criminal intent. In regard to second degree murder, the
requisite criminal intent would be the intent to do great bodily
harm, or a criminal intent aimed at life.
(Emphasis added). Even while agreeing to give the State’s instruction, the circuit court
commented that, “I don’t like that[,]” explaining, “You are saying you can find him guilty
of Second Degree Murder if there is intent to kill or cause great bodily harm.” (Emphasis
added). The petitioner again objected, stating “Murder requires specific intent to kill,
Judge . . . ,” and the circuit court agreed: “I have always felt that it did.” The circuit court
1
The circuit court did not give this specific proposed instruction.
4
stated to the assistant prosecutor, “If you want to give that, I will; but I will leave that up
to you.” Subsequently, in continuing the argument that intent to do great bodily harm is
an element of second-degree murder, as the State continued to insist, the circuit court
stated, “Okay. You all want it, you will get it; but you are going to have to lie with it.”
The circuit court specifically cautioned the State: “The only problem with these things
[referring to instructions], they [referring to this Court] will reverse on instructions quicker
than anything else. That is the only thing.”
The second issue on appeal concerns the voluntary manslaughter instruction
that was given to the jury. In this regard, the petitioner asked the circuit court to instruct
the jury that “‘Voluntary Manslaughter’ is the unlawful and intentional killing of another
without malice.” The circuit court initially agreed to give the petitioner’s instruction even
though the State argued that its instruction was better because it contained the elements of
sudden provocation and heat of passion. The circuit court stated, “It is intent to kill without
malice, in my opinion. I think that is right.” Despite the circuit court initially agreeing to
give the petitioner’s proposed instruction, the State pressed the circuit court to use its
instruction, which included the elements of sudden provocation and heat of passion. The
petitioner countered that these were not elements of the crime; if the jury found that the
petitioner did not act with malice, “then they may think, well, there is sudden provocation
[even] if there is no malice. . . . I think it is just pretty clear the jury has to believe there is
no malice involved.” The circuit court ultimately ruled that it would give the State’s
instruction on voluntary manslaughter: “[T]he Defendant . . . did feloniously, unlawfully
5
and intentionally, without premeditation, deliberation or malice, but upon sudden
provocation and in the heat of passion kill . . . [the victim].”2
During the jury’s deliberations, it sent the following message to the circuit
court: “Please submit instructions with definitions of Involuntary Manslaughter, Voluntary
Manslaughter, and Murder Two.” The circuit court gave the jury the same instructions that
it had previously read to them, but in writing. The jury convicted the petitioner of second-
degree murder. After the circuit court considered the petitioner’s post-trial motions, the
petitioner was sentenced to the maximum term of forty years in prison.
II. Standard of Review
Both assignments of error concern the instructions given to the jury. Our
review of the jury instructions is governed by the following standard of review:
A trial court’s instructions to the jury must be a correct
statement of the law and supported by the evidence. Jury
instructions are reviewed by determining whether the charge,
reviewed as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury so they
understood the issues involved and were not mis[led] by the
law. A jury instruction cannot be dissected on appeal; instead,
the entire instruction is looked at when determining its
accuracy. A trial court, therefore, has broad discretion in
formulating its charge to the jury, so long as the charge
accurately reflects the law. Deference is given to a trial court’s
discretion concerning the specific wording of the instruction,
and the precise extent and character of any specific instruction
will be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.
2
The jury was also instructed on involuntary manslaughter, but the petitioner raises
no error regarding the involuntary manslaughter instruction.
6
Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). We have also stated
that “if an objection to a jury instruction is a challenge to a trial court’s statement of the
legal standard, this Court will exercise de novo review.” Id. at 671, 461 S.E.2d at 177.
Finally, if, in connection with the legal sufficiency of the instructions, it is determined that
the petitioner failed to object to one or more instruction regarding the legal sufficiency, our
review would be under the plain error standard. Id. n.13 (citing State v. Miller, 194 W. Va.
3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995)).
III. Discussion
A. Second-degree Murder Instruction
The first issue before this Court is whether the circuit court erred in
instructing the jury that it could convict the petitioner of second-degree murder if it found
intent to kill or to cause great bodily harm. The petitioner argues that second-degree
murder requires a finding of intent to kill, as we previously held in Guthrie, 194 W. Va. at
676, 461 S.E.2d at 182, and that “aberrant case law misled the State below[,]” and thus the
circuit court, into error. Succinctly put, by instructing the jury that it could convict the
petitioner of second-degree murder if the petitioner merely intended to cause great bodily
harm to the victim, the circuit court effectively removed intent to kill as a required element
of the crime. In its brief in opposition, the State argues that it has long been recognized
that “intent to do great bodily harm is a sufficient level of criminal intent for a second
7
degree murder conviction[,]”3 and that this Court has never overruled the common law
formation of the intent necessary to establish second-degree murder. See State v. Davis,
3
We note at the outset that the State purposefully uses malice and intent
interchangeably, even though it recognizes that there is a distinct difference in our
jurisprudence:
“[W]ith the explicit caveat that the State recognizes that malice
includes more than the requisite criminal intent, because the
relevant inquiry in this case is the level of intent required in the
malice element of second degree murder, the State will use the
terms “malice” and “intent” interchangeably throughout the . .
. discussion.”
Even though we recognize that malice and intent to kill have been used interchangeably at
times, this Court has established that malice is a distinct element of second-degree murder,
separate from intent. See Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Bongalis, 180 W. Va. 584, 378 S.E.2d 449
(1989) (“‘“Malice, express or implied, is an essential element of murder in the second
degree, and if absent the homicide is of no higher grade than voluntary manslaughter.”
Syllabus Point 1, State v. Galford, 87 W. Va. 358, 105 S.E. 237 (1920).’ Syllabus Point 2
of State v. Clayton, 166 W. Va. 782, 277 S.E.2d 619 (1981)”); see also State ex rel. Combs
v. Boles, 151 W. Va. 194, 198, 151 S.E.2d 115, 118 (1966) (recognizing that malice is an
essential element of both first- and second-degree murder); Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Ponce, 124
W. Va. 126, 19 S.E.2d 221 (1942) (“Malice is an indispensable element of murder in the
second degree; and where, in a trial upon an indictment for murder, there is no evidence
showing malice or from which it may be inferred, it is error to instruct the jury that it may
find defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and a verdict of conviction based
upon such an erroneous instruction will be set aside and a new trial awarded.”). Thus, to
the extent the State conflates the two terms, and relies upon cases in its brief wherein the
Court was focused upon malice, rather than the intent element of second-degree murder,
the State unnecessarily confuses the issue before the Court. In this regard, we have
discussed the malice element needed to sustain a second-degree murder conviction in a
number of cases. See, e.g., State v. Bias, 156 W. Va. 569, 575, 195 S.E.2d 626, 629 (1973)
(noting in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge that “[o]rdinarily blows inflicted by one
person on another with bare fists do not demonstrate[] the malice requisite to sustain a
conviction of second degree murder. However, we have held that a protracted and
continued beating with bare hands by a stronger person upon a weaker person can evince
the malice necessary for a conviction of murder.”); State v. Weisengoff, 85 W. Va. 271,
286-87, 101 S.E. 450, 457 (1919) (finding that an act “which would be apt to produce death
or great bodily harm” would be sufficient to show malice); see also State v. Burdette, 135
8
220 W. Va. 590, 596, 648 S.E.2d 354, 360 (2007) (per curiam) (referring in dicta to intent
to do great bodily harm as meeting the intent element of second-degree murder).
Our examination of the elements of second-degree murder begins with the
common law. As Justice Cleckley, writing for the Court in Guthrie, noted in his thorough
analysis of murder generally:
At common law, murder was defined as the unlawful killing of
another human being with “malice aforethought.” Because the
common law definition of “malice aforethought” was
extremely flexible, “it became over time an ‘arbitrary symbol’
used by trial judges to signify any of the number of mental
states deemed sufficient to support liability for murder.” John
S. Baker, Jr., Daniel H. Benson, Robert Force, & B.J. George,
Jr., Hall’s Criminal Law 268–69 (5th ed. 1993). Nevertheless,
most American jurisdictions maintained a law of murder built
around common law classifications.
194 W. Va. at 673, 461 S.E.2d. at 179.
The West Virginia Legislature, however, following Pennsylvania’s lead,4
began the departure from the common law by enacting what is currently known as West
Virginia Code § 61-2-1, codifying murder and dividing it into degrees. The original
W. Va. 312, 332, 63 S.E.2d 69, 81 (1950) (finding in a sufficiency of the evidence
challenge that evidence of a vicious, brutal, and continued assault, even after victim was
helpless, was sufficient for the jury to find malice and to sustain a first-degree murder
conviction). Because we agree with the petitioner that this case is not about the malice
element of second-degree murder, we address only the issue of intent in this opinion.
4
See Guthrie, 194 W. Va. at 673 and n.20, 461 S.E.2d at 179 and n.20 (“Pertinent
to this case, the most significant departure from the common law came on April 22, 1794,
when the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted a statute dividing murder into degrees.”).
9
codification of first- and second-degree murder in West Virginia provided: “Murder by
poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate and
premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape,5 robbery
or burglary, is murder of the first degree. All other murder is murder of the second degree.”
See 1 Kelly’s W. Va. Rev’d Stat., Ch. 144, § 1 (1879) (footnote and emphasis added). 6
The most recent version of the statute, which was last amended in 1991, sets forth both
first- and second-degree murder as follows:
Murder by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment,
starving, or by any willful, deliberate and premeditated killing,
or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson,
kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, breaking and
entering, escape from lawful custody, or a felony offense of
manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance as defined
in article four [§ 60A-4-401 et seq.], chapter sixty-a of this
code, is murder of the first degree. All other murder is murder
of the second degree.
W. Va. Code § 61-2-1 (2014) (emphasis added). 7
5
In 1987, the Legislature amended the statute by substituting “sexual assault” for
“rape.” W. Va. Code § 61-2-1 (1987).
6
The original statute can be traced to its enactment in Virginia in 1849, remaining
unchanged until it was amended in 1987. See supra note 5.
7
The punishment for second-degree murder was “confinement in the penitentiary
not less than five nor more than eighteen years.” W. Va. Code § 61-2-3 (1923). This
punishment remained the same until 1994, when the punishment for second-degree murder
was increased to be “a definite term of imprisonment in the penitentiary which is not less
than ten nor more than forty years.” Id. (Supp. 1994).
10
Prior to and even for a significant period of time after the enactment of the
foregoing first- and second-degree murder statute, intent to cause serious bodily harm
remained a part of the common law elements that could be proven as part of a second-
degree murder conviction. This is reflected in the Court’s decision in State v. Morrison,
49 W. Va. 210, 38 S.E. 481 (1901). In Morrison, two friends had been drinking together
when they began to argue, and as a result of the dispute, the defendant picked up a heavy
stick and struck his friend with what turned out to be a fatal blow. Id. at 212, 38 S.E. at
482. The defendant was charged with murder, but the jury found him guilty of second-
degree murder. Id. at 211-12, 38 S.E.2d at 482. In syllabus points two and three, the Court
set forth the elements necessary to prove second-degree murder:
The intent to do enormous or severe bodily harm with a
deadly weapon, followed by homicide as the result of the
execution of such intent, constitutes murder in the second
degree, unless the act be done under such circumstances as
render the killing excusable, or justifiable, or voluntary
manslaughter.
A specific intention to kill is not essential to murder in
the second degree, but it is essential to murder in the first
degree.8
8
Interestingly, while the Morrison case has been cited by the Court as authority for
the propositions set forth in these two syllabus points, neither syllabus point has been
quoted by the Court in a majority criminal opinion since Morrison was decided in 1901,
one hundred and nineteen years ago. Further, the last time the case was cited by the Court
was in State v. Shrader, 172 W. Va. 1, 302 S.E.2d 70 (1982), which was a first-degree
murder case that was overruled, in part, by Guthrie in regard to the period of time needed
to deliberate and premediate—two elements necessary to establish first-degree murder. See
Syl. Pt. 6, Guthrie, 194 W. Va. at 664, 461 S.E.2d at 170.
11
Id. at 211, 38 S.E. at 481 (footnote added); see State v. Taylor, 57 W. Va. 228, 240, 50 S.E.
247, 252 (1905) (adhering to the common law, stating in dicta that “[i]f there was a fixed
purpose to do bodily harm, without killing, and death resulted, it was murder of the second
degree.”).
However, in the early 1980’s, and more specifically, in State v. Hatfield, 169
W. Va. 191, 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982), the Court moved away from the common law notion
that the intent to do great bodily harm was a requisite of second-degree murder, finding
that second-degree murder required intent to kill. In Hatfield, the Court stated:
We discussed at some length in State v. Starkey, supra, the term
“malice” and concluded it is essentially “a form of criminal
intent.” 244 S.E.2d at 223. Thus, in regard to first degree
murder, the term “malice” is often used as a substitute for
“specific intent to kill” or “an intentional killing.”9 E.g., State
v. Ferguson, W.Va., 270 S.E.2d 166, 170 (1980); State ex rel.
Combs v. Boles, 151 W. Va. 194, 198, 151 S.E.2d 115, 118
(1966). It is clear, however, that the intent to kill or malice is
a required element of both first and second degree murder but
the distinguishing feature for first degree murder is the
existence of premeditation and deliberation.
169 W. Va. at 198, 286 S.E.2d at 407-08 (footnote and emphasis added).
9
See supra note 3.
12
We made it even clearer in our subsequent opinion in Guthrie that intent to
kill is a necessary element of second-degree murder, restating our prior holding in Hatfield
as follows:
In State v. Hatfield, 169 W. Va. 191, 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982), we
made an effort to distinguish the degrees of murder by
indicating that the elements that separate first degree murder
and second degree murder are deliberation and premeditation
in addition to the formation of the specific intent to kill.
Deliberation and premeditation mean to reflect upon the intent
to kill and make a deliberate choice to carry it out. Although
no particular amount of time is required, there must be at least
a sufficient period to permit the accused to actually consider in
his or her mind the plan to kill. In this sense, murder in the first
degree is a calculated killing as opposed to a spontaneous
event.
194 W. Va. at 673-74, 461 S.E.2d at 179-80 (emphasis added). While the Court’s focus in
Guthrie was the premeditation and deliberation elements of first-degree murder, the Court
emphasized that intent to kill is an element of both first and second-degree murder:
[T]here must be some evidence that the defendant considered
and weighed his decision to kill in order for the State to
establish premeditation and deliberation under our first degree
murder statute. This is what is meant by a ruthless, cold-
blooded, calculating killing. Any other intentional killing, by
its spontaneous and nonreflective nature, is second degree
murder.
Id. at 675-76, 461 S.E.2d at 181-82 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).10
10
The State relies upon a per curiam decision issued in Davis to support its argument
that intent to do great bodily harm is sufficient for second-degree murder. Specifically, in
Davis, the Court, relying upon State v. Haddox, 166 W. Va. 630, 276 S.E.2d 788 (1981),
which was also a per curiam decision, stated:
13
Most recently in Gerlach v. Ballard, 233 W. Va. 141, 756 S.E.2d 195 (2013),
this Court again reaffirmed that intent to kill was an essential element of second-degree
murder. In Gerlach, the issue before us was whether double jeopardy principles were
violated when a person was convicted of both second-degree murder and death of a child
by a parent, guardian or custodian. Id. at 144, 756 S.E.2d at 198. Ironically, in undertaking
a Blockburger11 analysis in Gerlach, which involved examining the elements of each
crime, the defendant and the State in Gerlach took positions contrary to those taken by
A conviction for second degree murder cannot be
sustained without proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accused had the requisite criminal
intent. In regard to second degree murder, the
requisite criminal intent would be the intent to do
great bodily harm, or a criminal intent aimed at
life, or the intent to commit a specific felony, or
the intent to commit an act involving all the
wickedness of a felony.
State v. Haddox, 166 W. Va. 630, 632, 276 S.E.2d 788,
790 (1981) (rejecting State’s argument that intent was
not element of second degree murder).
Davis, 220 W. Va. at 596, 648 S.E.2d at 360 (quoting Haddox, 166 W. Va. at 632, 276
S.E.2d at 790). The State, however, ignores the fact that the foregoing language upon
which it focuses was obiter dicta. Id. Further, notwithstanding that dicta, the Court in
Davis reversed and remanded for a new trial because we found the jury instruction given
regarding intent was misleading: “The last question submitted by the jury stated, in effect,
that ‘intent’ was not an element of second degree murder. The State argued below and in
this appeal that ‘intent to kill is not an element of the crime of second degree murder.’ This
argument has no merit.” Id. at 596-97, 648 S.E.2d at 360-61.
11
See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 204 (1932) (“‘Where the same
act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be
applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision
requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’”); accord Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Gill, 187
W. Va. 136, 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992) (setting forth Blockburger test).
14
their counterparts in the instant case. The defendant argued that a conviction for second-
degree murder required the State to prove intent to harm, which the defendant argued was
the same as the intent necessary to prove death of a child by a parent, guardian or custodian;
the State, on the other hand, argued the intent element of second-degree murder was intent
to kill. Id. at 147, 756 S.E.2d at 201.
We recognized in Gerlach that intent to kill has not always been an element
of second-degree murder under our somewhat inconsistent jurisprudence. Id. at 148, 756
S.E.2d at 202 (citing State v. Hertzog, 55 W. Va. 74, 80, 46 S.E. 792, 794 (1904) (“[T]he
distinctive element in willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, not in murder of the
second degree, is the specific intention to take life[.]”); State v. Dodds, 54 W. Va. 289, 299,
46 S.E. 228, 232 (1903) (“Wherever, then in cases of deliberate homicide, there is a specific
intention to take life, the offense, if consummated, is murder in the first degree; if there is
not a specific intention to take life, it is murder in the second degree.”)). However,
notwithstanding those earlier precedents, we reiterated that pursuant to Guthrie, intent to
kill is an element of second-degree murder:
Of importance to the case at bar is the fact that Guthrie made
it clear that intent to kill is an element of second degree murder.
In that regard, Justice Cleckley further explained:
[T]here must be some evidence that the defendant
considered and weighed his decision to kill in order for
the State to establish premeditation and deliberation
under our first degree murder statute. This is what is
meant by a ruthless, cold-blooded, calculating killing.
Any other intentional killing, by its spontaneous and
nonreflective nature, is second degree murder.
15
Id. at 675-76, 461 S.E.2d at 181-82 (footnote omitted and
emphasis added).
Therefore, pursuant to Guthrie, intent to kill is an
element of second degree murder.
Gerlach, 233 W. Va. at 130-41, 756 S.E.2d at 203 (quoting, in part, Guthrie, 194 W. Va.
at 675-76, 461 S.E.2d at 181-82) (some emphasis added).
Applying this conclusion to the facts of the case before it, the Court
determined that the elements of the second-degree murder and death of a child by a parent,
guardian or custodian were different as “intent to kill is an element of second degree
murder. Intent to kill, however, is not an element of the offense of death of a child by a
parent, guardian or custodian as set forth in West Virginia Code § 61-8D-2a(a).” 233 W.
Va. at 149, 756 S.E.2d at 203. Therefore, double jeopardy principles were not violated
when the petitioner was convicted of both. Id.
Based upon the foregoing, it is apparent that a clear departure from the
common law began with the Hatfield decision in 1982, wherein the Court recognized that
the formation of a specific intent to kill was an element of second-degree murder. See 169
W. Va. at 198, 286 S.E.2d at 407-08; accord Guthrie, 194 W. Va. at 673-74, 461 S.E.2d at
179-80. Because the Court, however, has never recognized this departure by setting forth
the elements necessary for second-degree murder in a syllabus point, we now clarify the
departure that began almost forty years ago by holding that murder in the second degree is
16
the unlawful, intentional killing of another person with malice, but without deliberation
and premeditation. 12 To the extent that State v. Morrison, 49 W. Va. 210, 38 S.E.481
(1901), State v. Haddox, 166 W. Va. 630, 276 S.E.2d 788 (1981),13 and their progeny are
inconsistent with our holding, they are expressly overruled.
The reasons this clarification as to the law governing second-degree murder
is necessary are two-fold. First, without clarification, there will continue to be unnecessary
confusion in the elements necessary to establish second-degree murder, resulting in
instructional error such as occurred in the instant case. In this regard, we emphasize that
our holding herein does not mean that second-degree murder cannot be proven on facts
such as those present in the instant case; there are a myriad of factual scenarios upon which
the State can prove a charge of second-degree murder, so long as the evidence is sufficient
to establish the elements of the crime. Succinctly stated, once a jury is properly instructed
as to the elements of second-degree murder, it then becomes “[t]he jury’s sole function . .
. to pass on whether a defendant is guilty as charged based on the evidence presented at
12
Indeed, we have upheld convictions based on jury instructions with these elements.
See Delgado v. Ballard, No. 14-1005, 2015 WL 2382105, at *3 (W. Va. May 18, 2015)
(memorandum decision) (disagreeing with petitioner’s argument that instruction for
second-degree murder providing “‘[m]urder in the second degree is the unlawful
intentional killing of another person with malice but without deliberation and
premeditation[]’” was incomplete); State v. Foster, 221 W. Va. 629, 640, 656 S.E.2d 74,
85 (2007) (“‘Our review of the trial transcript indicates that the trial court correctly
instructed the jury that “[m]urder in the second degree is the unlawful, intentional killing
of another, with malice, but without deliberation or premeditation.”’”).
13
See supra note 10 (discussing the per curiam decision in Haddox).
17
trial and the law as given by the jury instructions.” Guthrie, 194 W. Va. at 678, 461 S.E.2d
at 184. This Court makes no pronouncements as to the type or amount of evidence that
may be sufficient to sustain a second-degree murder conviction; in all but the most unusual
cases, and upon proper instruction of law, that decision is entirely one for the trier of fact.
Second, absent clarification that intent to kill is the required element of
second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter would sometimes be a lesser included
offense of second-degree murder and sometimes not—a position espoused by the State in
this case. As we held in syllabus point one of State v. Louk, 169 W. Va. 24, 285 S.E.2d
432 (1981), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jenkins, 191 W. Va. 87, 433 S.E.2d 244
(1994),
[t]he test of determining whether a particular offense is
a lesser included offense is that the lesser offense must be such
that it is impossible to commit the greater offense without first
having committed the lesser offense. An offense is not a lesser
included offense if it requires the inclusion of an element not
required in the greater offense.14
14
As for the offenses at issue in this case, we found in syllabus point six of Guthrie,
194 W. Va. at 664, 461 S.E.2d at 170, that first-degree murder is the malicious, intentional,
deliberate, and premeditated killing of another. Second-degree murder is the unlawful,
intentional killing of another person with malice, but without deliberation and
premeditation. Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful, intentional killing of another
without malice. See Syl. Pt. 3, State v. McGuire, 200 W. Va. 823, 490 S.E.2d 912 (1997);
see also infra Section III. B (discussing McGuire in greater detail). Involuntary
manslaughter is an unlawful killing. See Syl. Pt. 7, State v. Barker, 128 W. Va. 744, 38
S.E.2d 346 (1946) (“The offense of involuntary manslaughter is committed when a person,
while engaged in an unlawful act, unintentionally causes the death of another, or where a
person engaged in a lawful act, unlawfully causes the death of another.”).
18
(Footnote added). In McGuire, we stated that “[i]n West Virginia, there can be no doubt
that we also have considered voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of
murder.” 200 W. Va. at 834, 490 S.E.2d at 923. This recognition was predicated upon
the intent to kill being necessary elements of both second-degree murder and voluntary
manslaughter.
Despite our longstanding recognition that voluntary manslaughter is a lesser
included offense of second-degree murder, the State invites the Court to allow the State to
determine “whether voluntary manslaughter is a lesser-included offense [of second-degree
murder]” based on whether it decides to proceed on a second-degree murder theory of
intent to kill or intent to do great bodily harm. Under the State’s logic, if it proceeded on
the first theory, voluntary manslaughter would be a lesser included offense for the jury to
consider; if it proceeded on the second theory, voluntary manslaughter would not be a
lesser included offense and would not even be listed on the verdict form; and if it proceeded
on alternative theories, as it did in this case, then it would be up to the jury to decide whether
voluntary manslaughter would be a lesser included offense—and the verdict form would
necessarily be a complicated maze of options. We find the State’s suggested approach is
in direct contravention of our existing law, is so complex as to be incapable of application,
and is therefore untenable.
19
Accordingly, because the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that it
could convict the petitioner of second degree murder if it found intent to kill or to cause
great bodily injury, we reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
B. Involuntary Manslaughter
The petitioner next argues that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury
that it could not convict him of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of
second-degree murder without proof of sudden provocation and heat of passion. 15 The
petitioner contends that at the same time the circuit court made it easier for the State to
prove second-degree murder, it made it more difficult for the jury to consider voluntary
manslaughter by adding the elements of sudden provocation and heat of passion. We agree.
The Court expressly held in syllabus point three of McGuire that “[g]ross
provocation and heat of passion are not essential elements of voluntary manslaughter, and,
therefore, they need not be proven by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is intent
without malice, not heat of passion, which is the distinguishing feature of voluntary
15
We disagree with the State’s argument that this assigned error was not preserved
by the petitioner below. Even assuming, arguendo, that it was not properly preserved, the
Court could review it under the plain error doctrine. See W. Va. Rule of Crim. P. 30 (“No
party may assign as error the giving or the refusal to give an instruction or the giving of
any portion of the charge unless that party objects thereto before the arguments to the jury
are begun, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the
objection; but the court or any appellate court may, in the interest of justice, notice plain
error in the giving or refusal to give an instruction, whether or not it has been made the
subject of objection.”).
20
manslaughter.” 200 W. Va. at 825, 490 S.E.2d at 914, Syl. Pt. 3 (emphasis added).16 Thus,
to the extent that the jury was instructed that voluntary manslaughter required proof that
the petitioner killed the victim “unlawfully and intentionally, without premeditation,
deliberation, or malice, but upon sudden provocation and in the heat of passion[,]” the
instruction contained elements that were not essential to a conviction for voluntary
manslaughter. (Emphasis added). The error in the instruction given by the circuit court is
in direct contravention to the Court’s holding in McGuire. This instructional error also
warrants a reversal and remand for a new trial.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cabell County is
reversed, and this case is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
16
The State concedes in its brief that sudden provocation and heat of passion are
not elements of voluntary manslaughter under West Virginia law. But the State argues that
the inclusion of those elements adds to the State’s burden and is therefore harmless to the
petitioner. We disagree.
21