State v. Williams

236 W.Va. 130

778 S.E.2d 579

STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent

v.Steven Michael WILLIAMS, Defendant Below, Petitioner.

No. 14–0455.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Sept. 15, 2015.

Decided Sept. 24, 2015.

Ryan J. Flanigan, Esq., Sanders, Austin, Flanigan & Flanigan, Princeton, WV, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Julie A. Warren, Assistant Attorney General, Erica N. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, WV, Counsel for the Respondent.

Opinion

KETCHUM, Justice:

Petitioner Michael Williams was found guilty of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm following a jury trial in Mercer County. On appeal, Mr. Williams asserts that the circuit court erred by granting a motion in limine filed by the State. The court's ruling prevented Mr. Williams from cross-examining a State witness, Victoria Combs, about the terms of a pretrial diversion agreement she had entered into with the State. Ms. Combs's criminal charge underlying her pretrial diversion agreement was not related to the charges against Mr. Williams. When Ms. Combs testified in Mr. Williams's case, she had completed the pretrial diversion agreement, and the criminal charge against her had been dismissed.

In granting the State's motion in limine, the circuit court stated, “Rule 609(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidencerequires a conviction before a witness may be impeached with a prior criminal act.” The circuit court explained that because the witness had completed her pretrial diversion agreement and the charge against her had been dismissed, “there was no criminal conviction with which to impeach the witness.” While the circuit court granted the State's motion, it allowed counsel for Mr. Williams to question Ms. Combs during an in camerahearing to explore whether she was induced or pressured into giving a statement in Mr. Williams's case. Ms. Combs testified that she was not induced or pressured into giving a statement to the investigating officer in Mr. Williams's case.

Mr. Williams asserts that the circuit court's ruling granting the State's motion in limine was in error, and he asks this Court to reverse his conviction and grant him a new trial.

After review, we affirm the circuit court's ruling.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2013, Mr. Williams was indicted on four criminal charges: two counts of wanton endangerment in violation of W.Va.Code § 61–7–12 [1994]; one count of “unlawful shooting at another in street, alley, or public resort” in violation of W.Va.Code § 61–7–11 [1989]; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of W.Va.Code § 61–7–7(b)(2) [2013]. This indictment resulted from a shooting incident that took place in the parking lot of a McDonald's restaurant in Princeton, West Virginia.

At approximately 3:30 a.m. on May 5, 2013, Mr. Williams, who was driving a black car with two male passengers, entered the McDonald's drive-through lane and placed an order. A car containing two males, Kody Smith and Devon Honaker (“Smith/Honaker car”), pulled in behind Mr. Williams's car at McDonald's. The men in the two cars began to argue with each other while they waited in the drive-through line. Victoria Combs was working at the McDonald's drive-through window when this incident occurred. Ms. Combs described what she observed as she was handing Mr. Williams his food:

We only had three cars left in our drive-thru, and I was bringing food back to the second window for the car at my window, and I heard—I don't know exactly what was being said, but it sounded like “Why don't you come,” and then we have music playing in the background of our store, so I couldn't really decipher what the rest of it was.

And when I brought his [Mr. Williams] drink over he was pulling the gun up onto his lap, and kind of had his head turned to the car behind him. And so I handed him his drink, shut the window and walked away.

After receiving his food, Mr. Williams pulled into a parking area near the front of the restaurant. Shortly thereafter, the Smith/Honaker car came upon Mr. Williams's car and the men continued arguing. Mr. Williams and Mr. Honaker got out of their cars and started walking toward each other. Mr. Honaker told the police that Mr. Williams pulled out a handgun and fired at him. Mr. Williams denied that he had a gun and denied shooting at Mr. Honaker. The police later determined that a bullet had struck the passenger side of the Smith/Honaker car. After the shot was fired, both men got back into their cars and drove away.

A McDonald's employee, Charles Cehen, heard the gunshot and called the police. Mr. Cehen testified that the investigating officer, State Trooper Benjamin Wood (“investigating officer”), arrived ten to fifteen minutes later and began his investigation. The first two witnesses interviewed by the investigating officer were the two McDonald's employees, Mr. Cehen¹and Ms. Combs. The investigating officer took statements from Mr. Cehen and Ms. Combs within the first thirty minutes of his investigation.

Following the investigation, Mr. Williams was charged with four criminal counts, including being a felon in possession of a handgun. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to prohibit Mr. Williams from questioning one of the McDonald's employees, Ms. Combs, about a conspiracy to commit robbery charge she previously faced. The circuit court held a hearing on this motion, and described the substance of the State's motion as follows:

It's my understanding that the State wants to limit the defense from inquiring of Victoria Combs regarding a plea that she entered into where adjudication was held in abeyance. She ultimately completed her probation and her probation—as a result of that, the court ultimately expunged her record and dismissed the case. So there was never an adjudication, never a finding of guilt.

Ms. Combs entered into a pretrial diversion agreement with the State on September 19, 2012, approximately eight months before the shooting incident involving Mr. Williams in the McDonald's parking lot. Ms. Combs pled guilty to a felony conspiracy charge but per the pretrial diversion agreement, the guilty plea was held in abeyance and Ms. Combs was placed on probation for twenty-four months. According to the plea agreement, if Ms. Combs successfully completed her probation, she would be permitted to withdraw her guilty plea and the case against her would be dismissed.

Ms. Combs was on probation at the time of the shooting in the McDonald's parking lot. Ms. Combs had completed her probation and was no longer facing any criminal charges at the time of Mr. Williams's trial.²Counsel for Mr. Williams argued that he should be allowed to question Ms. Combs about her probation stemming from the pretrial diversion agreement to determine whether she was pressured or induced by the investigating officer into making a statement implicating Mr. Williams. Counsel for Mr. Williams admitted that there was no evidence or factual basis suggesting that the investigating officer induced or pressured Ms. Combs into giving a statement. Instead, counsel stated, “I don't know if Ms. Combs made this story up about seeing the driver with a gun that night to get in good with the police. I don't know if she got any consideration for it.”

To be clear, the undisputed facts are that the investigating officer arrived at McDonald's ten to fifteen minutes after the shooting occurred. The two McDonald's employees, Mr. Cehen and Ms. Combs, were the first two witnesses interviewed by the investigating officer. Ms. Combs gave her statement within the first thirty minutes of the investigation. Counsel for Mr. Williams did not explain why the investigating officer, thirty minutes into his investigation and interviewing the first two fact witnesses, would have pressured or induced Ms. Combs into making a statement implicating Mr. Williams.

Counsel for the State disputed the notion that Ms. Combs was offered any consideration by the investigating officer in exchange for the statement she made. Counsel for the State told the circuit court:

There was absolutely no consideration whatsoever. The officer is responding—the incident occurred about 4 a.m. in the morning at McDonald's. She is working the window. As she's working the window, her testimony will be that she heard the defendant yelling at the car behind him, and that she saw him reach into the console, get a gun, and place it on his lap.

Circuit Court: And she gave that statement the night of the incident?

State Counsel: Yes, sir. It was probably maybe an hour or so later....

Circuit Court: Let me make sure I understand, the only time he [investigating officer] took a statement from her was the night of the incident?

State Counsel: Yes, sir.

Circuit Court: So how could ... they [the police] have solicited this statement in return for having her case dismissed early? I mean, there's no—there's no ... factual basis to say that's how this happened.

At the conclusion of this hearing, the circuit court granted the State's motion in limine to prohibit Mr. Williams from questioning Ms. Combs about her prior pretrial diversion agreement and the probation term contained therein. However, the court offered to hold an in camerahearing prior to Ms. Combs's trial testimony to allow Mr. Williams to question her about whether she felt pressured or was offered anything in exchange for giving the police a statement. The court stated that if Ms. Combs testified that she was pressured or induced into giving the police a statement, it would overrule the State's motion in limine.

The trial began on February 18, 2014. Ms. Combs was the fourth witness called by the State. Prior to her testimony before the jury, the circuit court conducted the in camerait had previously discussed. During this hearing, Ms. Combs testified that she was not offered any type of deal or support in exchange for making a statement to the investigating officer;...