State of West Virginia v. David D. W., 214 W. Va. 167

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed David D. W.'s convictions for 152 sexual offenses but reversed his aggregate sentence of 1,140 to 2,660 years as disproportionate under the West Virginia Constitution. The court rejected challenges concerning grand-jury presentation, indictment sufficiency, voluntariness of the defendant's statement, juror qualification, and evidentiary sufficiency. The case was remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. A defendant may not challenge a facially valid indictment returned by a legally constituted grand jury based solely on the alleged insufficiency or legality of the evidence presented to the grand jury, absent willful, intentional fraud, constitutional error, or prosecutorial misconduct.
2. The indictment was sufficient because it substantially followed the statutory language, informed the defendant of the charged offenses and applicable statutes, and was not required to specify exact dates because time was not an element of the offenses.
3. The defendant's statement was voluntary and was properly admitted after he was advised of and waived his Miranda rights, was free to end the interview, and presented no evidence of coercion, promises of leniency, or intoxication.
4. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's challenge to one prospective juror and granting the State's challenge to another because the record did not show that the first juror was biased and showed that the second could not be impartial.
5. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions because, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the victim's testimony established the sexual acts and frequency of offenses, and a sexual conviction may rest on uncorroborated victim testimony unless it is inherently incredible.
6. An aggregate sentence of 1,140 to 2,660 years, although within statutory limits and supported by statutory authority for consecutive sentences, violated the proportionality principle of Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution because it shocked the conscience and effectively imposed multiple life sentences.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State improperly presented the case to the grand jury through the testimony of a single investigating officer.
2. Whether the indictment was constitutionally sufficient despite its lack of exact dates and the large number of counts.
3. Whether the defendant's statement to police was involuntary and should have been suppressed.
4. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling on challenges for cause to prospective jurors.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support 152 convictions, including whether victim testimony alone and evidence concerning the frequency of offenses were sufficient.
6. Whether the aggregate sentence violated the proportionality principle of Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution and constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded