State of West Virginia v. Timothy Ray Sutherland, 231 W. Va. 410

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed Timothy Ray Sutherland’s first-degree murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence. The court held that a prospective juror’s general statement concerning punishment did not establish clear bias requiring removal for cause, particularly where further voir dire was not conducted. The court overruled the automatic-new-trial remedy in State v. Phillips, holding that a defendant who uses a peremptory strike to remove a juror who should have been struck for cause must show prejudice.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sutherland's motion to strike Wong for cause because Wong's generalized statements concerning punishment and mercy were inconclusive and were not followed by further questioning establishing actual bias or an inability to follow the law.
2. A trial court's failure to remove a biased juror under W. Va. Code § 62-3-3 does not violate the defendant's right to an impartial jury when the defendant removes the juror with a peremptory strike. A defendant seeking a new trial must show prejudice. The court expressly overruled Syllabus point 8 of State v. Phillips.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike prospective juror Kevin Wong for cause based on his voir dire statements concerning punishment and mercy.
2. Whether a defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial when a trial court fails to remove a biased prospective juror for cause but the defendant removes that juror with a peremptory strike.

Disposition

affirmed