State v. Stines

State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent v. Michael Joseph Stines, Defendant Below, Petitioner

No. 17-0537

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

November 16, 2018

(Raleigh County 13-F-226-B)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Michael Joseph Stines, by counsel Robert Dunlap and Sarah Smith, appeals his October 26, 2016, convictions of murder in the first-degree and wanton endangerment. Respondent State of West Virginia, by counsel Kristin Keller, filed a response in support of the circuit court's order. Petitioner filed a reply and supplemental appendices.¹

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 circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In 2012, Christopher Ward ("the decedent") and his wife Sharon Ward ("Ms. Ward") separated and, shortly thereafter, initiated divorce proceedings. In or around January of 2013, petitioner began a romantic relationship with Ms. Ward. The Wards' divorce proceedings were dismissed in March of 2013, when they reportedly reconciled. Despite the Wards' reconciliation, petitioner's romantic relationship with Ms. Ward continued.

On April 18, 2013, the decedent returned to the home he shared with Ms. Ward and their children to retrieve some of his personal items and tools.² When the decedent arrived at the home, Ms. Ward was talking to petitioner on the telephone. Petitioner asked Ms. Ward if she wanted him to come to the home while her husband was there, to which Ms. Ward replied "no"and ended their telephone call. Petitioner then began calling the Ward home directly and, over the course of the evening of April 18, 2013, spoke with the decedent multiple times. Petitioner contends that during these telephone calls, the decedent made threats against him; however, petitioner acknowledged that he and the decedent were bantering back and forth, trading insults. During one such call, petitioner alleges that he heard arguing and screaming in the background. Further, petitioner claims that he received a phone call from one of the Ward children asking him to come to the Ward residence to render assistance to Ms. Ward, and to bring his gun. Thereafter, despite Ms. Ward's request for him to stay away, petitioner drove to the Ward home.

Once arriving at the Ward home, petitioner, who was carrying a loaded firearm, entered the home through an open garage door. Petitioner went into the living room and peered down a hallway where he reportedly observed the decedent and Ms. Ward arguing. Petitioner claims he witnessed the decedent push Ms. Ward. Thereafter, petitioner pointed his gun at the decedent in an attempt to intimidate him to refrain from further physical contact with Ms. Ward and compel him to leave the residence. According to petitioner, the decedent then lunged at him and the two engaged in a physical altercation, during which two shots were fired. One of the bullets struck the decedent in the abdomen, and the other came to rest in a window frame in one of the Ward children's bedrooms. When paramedics arrived at the residence, the decedent was lying adjacent to the hallway on the floor of the master bedroom. The decedent was subsequently transported to a local hospital where he later died as a result of his injuries.

When law enforcement officers arrived at the Ward residence following the shooting, petitioner volunteered to officers that he shot the decedent and identified his personal firearm as the murder weapon. At the scene, Ms. Ward told officers that petitioner shot her husband. Ms. Ward told officers that she had advised petitioner to stay away from the residence that evening and described that she, her husband, and their three children were in the master bedroom when petitioner fired the first shot. Ms. Ward told officers she was in the process of getting the children out of the master bedroom and to the interior front of the residence as petitioner fired the second shot.

A post-mortem examination of the decedent revealed that he sustained a gunshot wound to the abdomen that caused massive internal injury and internal bleeding, with the bullet lodged in his lower spine. In addition to the gunshot wound, the post-mortem examination revealed that the decedent suffered "multiple blunt force injuries to the back, top, and front of his head."

Officers at the scene completed a search of the vehicle petitioner drove to the Ward home, and discovered a written "Pest Control Service Agreement" dated February 7, 2013.³ This agreement, which appeared to be a falsified work order from the extermination company for which petitioner worked, was endorsed by both petitioner and Ms. Ward and included a start date of January 4, 2013. The agreement is described below.

Grand jury proceedings related to the decedent's death ultimately commenced. At those proceedings, petitioner testified and admitted that he shot the decedent. Further, petitioner confirmed that he was not invited to the Ward home on the evening in question and that Ms. Ward had told him that her husband was at the home "just to get his stuff." Petitioner testified that before entering the Ward residence he unsheathed the gun from the holster and that the gun had "one [bullet] in the chamber." Petitioner admitted that he hit the decedent over the head once or twice with the gun before shooting him. When asked if he, at any time, believed it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent bodily injury or death to himself or others, petitioner stated, "after [the decedent] grabbed the gun, yes, probably." However, before this, petitioner stated, "I wasn't for sure."

In June of 2013, petitioner was indicted for the first-degree murder of the decedent, with use of a firearm, and the wanton endangerment. In October of 2016, petitioner's jury trial began. Ms. Ward's trial testimony was different from the version of events she relayed to officers at the crime scene. At trial, Ms. Ward testified that she was at the end of the hallway, by the master bedroom, with her oldest son and did not know the whereabouts of her two younger children when petitioner fired the gun. However, when confronted with her prior statement, Ms. Ward claimed a memory loss but confirmed that her prior statement indicated that she and her children were in the master bedroom when petitioner fired the first shot.

One of the investigating officers took a video and multiple still photographs of the crime scene, which were subsequently introduced into evidence at trial. The officer testified that one of the bullet casings was discovered in the hallway outside of the master bedroom, with another casing found inside the master bedroom, and a bullet was recovered in one of the children's bedrooms across the hall from the master bedroom. A second investigating officer testified that following the shooting he took petitioner's statement. During this statement, petitioner admitted that when he arrived at the Ward home on the evening in question, he entered the home and observed the decedent standing at the opposite end of the hallway, adjacent to the master bedroom, and "raised the gun up and pointed it at" the decedent.

After the State presented its case, petitioner's counsel acknowledged that evidence of the alleged character or reputation or conduct of the decedent prior to petitioner's April 18, 2013, arrival at the Ward residence would be inadmissible unless and until there was evidence that the decedent was the aggressor at the time of the shooting. Thereafter, petitioner was called to testify and advised that, on the evening of the shooting, he first observed the decedent at the end of the hallway of the Ward home with his back toward the wall. Petitioner admitted that he approached the decedent and "aimed the gun" at him. Petitioner testified that the decedent attempted to grab the gun and throw punches, at which time petitioner struck the decedent with the gun multiple times in an effort to try and "knock him out." Under cross-examination, petitioner admitted that despite his claims that he was concerned for the welfare of Ms. Ward and her children, he never called 9-1-1 or law enforcement for assistance. Further, petitioner testified that instead of going to Ms. Ward's aid when he entered the Ward home, he walked directly to the decedent, whose back was against the wall, and pointed the gun at him. Even though petitioner claimed it was his intent only to scare the decedent, petitioner agreed that he "never conveyed such intent to" the decedent. Further, petitioner admitted that if he had only intended to scare the decedent, he could have easily have "pushed" on the gun's magazine release, but did not do so. Petitioner furtheracknowledged that firing a gun in a small house where three children were present posted a "substantial possibility that one of those kids . . . could get hurt."

At the conclusion of presentation of evidence, the parties submitted multiple proposed jury instructions. Respondent submitted a self-defense instruction and an instruction on the defense of accident. Petitioner did not submit any self-defense instructions. The jury was instructed on first-degree murder by premeditation, first-degree murder by felony murder, second-degree murder, wanton endangerment with a firearm, accident, and self-defense.

On October 26, 2016, petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder by use of a firearm, with no recommendation of mercy, and wanton endangerment with a firearm. On December 15, 2016, petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction without mercy, along with an additional five years...