Case Law State v. L. M. C.

State v. L. M. C.

Document Cited Authorities (26) Cited in Related

(Lewis County 17-F-12)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner L.M.C.,1 by counsel Jeremy B. Cooper, appeals her convictions for murder of a child by parent, guardian, custodian, or other person by refusal or failure to provide necessities; death of a child by parent, guardian, custodian, or other person by child abuse; child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury; and concealment of a deceased human body. Respondent State of West Virginia, by counsel Scott Johnson, filed a response in support of petitioner's convictions. Petitioner filed a reply.2

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 briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons,a memorandum decision affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In September of 2011, petitioner lived in Weston, West Virginia, with her three daughters, D.C., K.C., and A.L.; two sons, T.C. and B.C.; and Ralph Lunsford, the children's father.3 Petitioner was then eight to eight and one-half months pregnant with twins. On the evening of September 23, 2011, petitioner became angry with A.L., would not allow her to eat dinner, and forced her to stand in the corner. That same evening, D.C. observed petitioner take a piece of a broken bed slat and strike A.L. over the head with the slat.4 Ultimately, K.C. and D.C. approached A.L. and K.C. helped the child to bed. Both K.C. and D.C. reported feeling the back of A.L.'s head after the incident and described it as "squishy." After placing A.L. in bed, K.C. and D.C. advised petitioner that A.L. was "hurt . . . really bad" to which petitioner responded that "she did not care." Thereafter, petitioner made no effort to check on the physical well-being of A.L.

During the early morning hours of September 24, 2011, D.C. woke to check on A.L., and observed that A.L. was breathing. However, the following morning, when D.C. and K.C. were directed by petitioner to check on A.L., the girls found that A.L. was not breathing and was unresponsive. Petitioner then came into A.L.'s room, shook A.L., and tried calling her name. Ultimately, petitioner scooped up A.L.'s body, put the child on the bathroom counter, raised the child's eyelids, called her name, attempted CPR, and ran A.L.'s body under cold water. A.L. remained unresponsive. Petitioner then located a clothes basket and placed A.L.'s body in the basket, along with some clothing to mask the body, and placed the basket into the family van. Petitioner then drove the van, in which K.C., B.C., and D.C. were passengers, to the Vadis, West Virginia, area and directed K.C. and D.C. "to look for a road without any signs." Once the girls noticed such a location, petitioner stopped the van and told D.C. to remain in the vehicle with B.C. Petitioner then took K.C. and the clothes basket containing the body of A.L. into the woods. K.C. testified that, eventually, she and petitioner came to a spot in the woods where petitioner told her to wait. Petitioner then took the clothes basket with A.L.'s body out of K.C.'s sight and returned after what K.C. stated felt "like quite a while" without A.L.'s body. When petitioner and K.C. returned to the van, D.C. observed that petitioner's hands and stomach were dirty.

Petitioner then drove K.C., B.C., and D.C. back to their residence and made them "promise not to tell anyone what happened." However, while on the way back to their residence, petitioner's vehicle ran out of gas. K.C. and D.C. were directed by petitioner, to "ask for gas at some houses that were around." Two women provided gas to petitioner but neither was advised that A.L. was missing or that petitioner was allegedly searching for A.L. Once they had obtained sufficient gas for the van, petitioner and the children returned to their residence where they, at the direction ofpetitioner, "cleaned the house." After they cleaned the house, petitioner called the police and reported A.L. missing. Before police arrived at petitioner's home, K.C. testified that petitioner came up with a "storyline" that K.C. and D.C. were to follow: A.L. had been sick all week, they had all gone to bed early, and when they awoke, A.L. was gone. Once A.L. was reported missing, extensive efforts began to search for the child and investigate the circumstances of her disappearance.

Sometime after A.L.'s reported disappearance, petitioner's surviving children were placed with other families and petitioner relocated to Florida. In 2016, K.C. and D.C. made disclosures that petitioner struck A.L. with a wooden bed slat in September of 2011, causing A.L.'s death. In October of 2016, K.C. and D.C. agreed to "come forward with the truth about what really happened to A.L." Both K.C. and D.C. testified that they initially lied about what happened the night of the incident because they feared that petitioner might harm them. D.C. advised that she decided to come forward and tell the truth after five years as she felt that "continuing to hide what happened to [A.L.] was interfering with [her] relationship with God." A.L.'s body was never recovered.5

Based upon the statements of K.C. and D.C., an arrest warrant was obtained and executed upon petitioner in Florida. Following her extradition and preliminary hearing, petitioner was indicted by the Lewis County Grand Jury on four charges: (1) murder of a child by parent, guardian, custodian, or other person by refusal or failure to provide necessities (in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8D-2(a)); (2) death of a child by parent, guardian, custodian, or other person by child abuse (in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8D-2(a); (3) child abuse resulting in injury (in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8D-3(b)); and (4) concealment of a deceased human body (in violation of West Virginia Code § 61-2-5(a). Following a jury trial, at which petitioner did not testify, she was convicted on all charges.

At trial, West Virginia State Police Sgt. Shannon Loudin testified regarding A.L.'s reported injuries. Sgt. Loudin stated that:

[w]hen I look at the possibility of whether or not a strike to the head by a board; by an adult to a three (3) year old's head; my opinion is that it's perfectly possible that that caused an internal injury; which vomiting is a symptom of. And it's - - been testified that she was vomiting. There was some orange stuff around her mouth when she was found the next morning. So yes; I would presume that striking on top of the head of a three (3) year old whose skull is not yet fused together; it doesn't take much to cause an internal injury that would not have any external bleeding that would leave any DNA evidence on the scene.

When asked if he had a physician to support his opinions, Sgt. Loudin stated that he did not claim to be a physician but had

been part of a lot of child fatality investigations and in my experience and sixteen (16) years as a law enforcement officer I've seen a lot of injuries to children and -- saw what caused those injuries and had a lot of training in what happens to a child's body when - - when they're abused and in those types of cases.

Because of the nature of petitioner's convictions, following trial, a mercy phase hearing was completed. The jury did not recommend mercy for petitioner. Petitioner, then self-represented, filed a number of post-trial motions, including one alleging the insufficiency of the evidence against her, and a violation of her rights related to respondent's failure to disclose an expert witness. The circuit court denied petitioner's post-trial motions and, on July 2, 2018, sentenced petitioner to life imprisonment without mercy.6 It is from her convictions that petitioner now appeals.

On appeal, petitioner asserts nine assignments of error, which we will address in turn. First, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in failing to grant her judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence to establish that she formed criminal intent to cause the death of her child by withholding medical care, a violation of West Virginia Code § 61-8D-2(a). Petitioner further contends that there was insufficient evidence that respondent established "corpus delecti: that a death occurred at all, and that the death occurred as a result of a criminal act." Generally, petitioner argues that the questionable veracity of the trial testimony of her daughters, K.C., and D.C., provided an insufficient basis for her conviction.

This Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 304, 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996). We have explained that

[t]he 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).

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
...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex