State of West Virginia v. Garland Murray

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed Garland Murray's convictions for nighttime burglary, first-degree murder, and attempted kidnapping. The court rejected claims concerning self-representation, absence during jury communications, compulsory process, character and other-acts evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, hearsay, and an eyewitness-reliability instruction. The court issued the decision as a memorandum decision under Rule 21 and found no substantial question of law or prejudicial error.

Holdings

1. A defendant must assert the desire to represent himself in a timely and unequivocal manner. Murray's statement that he would rather represent himself, followed by a request for new appointed counsel and later an acknowledgment that his counsel problems were resolved, was not an unequivocal invocation of self-representation.
2. A defendant's absence at a critical stage is not reversible error where there is no possibility of prejudice. Murray failed to show prejudice from his absence while the court answered the jury's questions.
3. The record did not establish a violation of Murray's right to compulsory process because defense counsel made a tactical decision not to call his brother as a witness.
4. The admission of Murray's nickname did not constitute plain error, and evidence concerning the car and Murray's prior drug purchases was intrinsic to the charged crimes rather than subject to suppression under Rule 404(b).
5. The court declined to decide Murray's ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal because the record was not sufficiently developed.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the text messages because the messages were admissible under applicable hearsay principles, including statements of a party or coconspirator, evidence offered for a non-hearsay purpose, and the present-sense-impression and then-existing-condition exceptions.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing Murray's requested cautionary instruction on eyewitness reliability because the eyewitness knew Murray and his codefendant for a considerable period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Murray timely and unequivocally invoked his constitutional right to waive counsel and represent himself.
2. Whether Murray was prejudiced by his absence when the trial court answered jury questions during deliberations.
3. Whether the refusal to call Murray's brother as a defense witness violated Murray's right to compulsory process.
4. Whether evidence concerning Murray's nickname, an allegedly stolen car, and prior drug purchases was impermissible character or other-acts evidence under West Virginia Rules of Evidence 404(a) and 404(b).
5. Whether Murray's ineffective-assistance claim could be resolved on direct appeal.
6. Whether text messages admitted at trial constituted inadmissible hearsay.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to give a cautionary instruction concerning eyewitness reliability.

Disposition

affirmed