Danielle T. Hilling v. Lori Nohe, Warden

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of Danielle T. Hilling’s petition for habeas corpus relief following her convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The Court held that the asserted errors, including prosecutorial remarks, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, denial of a continuance, failure to bifurcate sentencing, and juror bias, were either previously raised on direct appeal or constituted ordinary trial errors not reviewable in habeas proceedings.

Holdings

1. A state habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error and does not review ordinary trial error that does not involve a constitutional violation.
2. A challenge to a juror must be exercised timely; when counsel does not move to strike the juror for cause, the objection is unavailing as a basis to set aside the verdict.
3. A unitary trial procedure is constitutional; the circuit court's refusal to bifurcate the guilt and mercy phases did not establish a constitutional violation.
4. A claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction is trial error proper for consideration on direct appeal, not in this habeas proceeding absent a cognizable constitutional violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hilling's claims concerning prosecutorial remarks, closing argument, denial of a continuance, evidentiary rulings, bifurcation, juror bias, and sufficiency of the evidence were cognizable in a state habeas corpus proceeding.
2. Whether the alleged failure to timely challenge a potentially biased juror barred relief.
3. Whether a unitary trial procedure, rather than bifurcation of guilt and mercy phases, was unconstitutional.

Disposition

affirmed