State v. Swims, 212 W. Va. 263

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed Jessie Lee Swims's convictions for conspiracy and aggravated robbery. The court upheld rulings concerning juror disqualification, use of a videotape transcript, and testimony about an unrelated murder, but held that the trial court erred by failing to redact prejudicial language from co-defendants' plea agreements. The convictions and sentences were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A juror may be struck for cause after voir dire when the disqualification is discovered only afterward and the party promptly brings it to the trial court's attention; the State was not required to use a peremptory strike to remove the juror who was the son of an attorney in defense counsel's firm.
2. A transcript supplied to jurors while an audio or video recording is being viewed or heard may be used as a demonstrative aid, not as evidence, if properly marked, identified, accompanied by a limiting instruction, and withheld from the jury during deliberations.
3. Evidence concerning the age and sex of the unrelated Georgia murder victim was irrelevant and should not have been admitted, but its admission was harmless because it could not have affected the verdict.
4. A prosecutor may elicit testimony about a co-defendant's plea agreement and introduce the agreement for legitimate purposes such as permitting assessment of credibility, explaining selective prosecution, and explaining the witness's knowledge, but the trial judge must redact all provisions that could be used as evidence of the defendant's guilt, bolster the co-defendant's testimony, or directly or indirectly vouch for the co-defendant's veracity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly struck a juror for cause after voir dire had concluded.
2. Whether the trial court properly permitted the State to use a transcript of statements from a videotape as a demonstrative aid.
3. Whether testimony concerning the age and sex of an unrelated Georgia murder victim was improperly admitted and, if so, whether the error was prejudicial.
4. Whether the trial court erred by failing to redact prejudicial and irrelevant provisions from co-defendants' plea agreements.
5. Whether the aggravated-robbery sentence was disproportionate.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded