State of West Virginia v. Gary Lee Rollins
2014 WL 2835064, 760 S.E.2d 529, 233 W. Va. 715 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's prior acts of domestic violence against a murder victim is admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove absence of mistake or accident, even when the defendant's theory is that the victim's death was caused by an accident in which the defendant was not involved.
Facts:
- Gary Lee Rollins was having a year-long extramarital affair with one of his farm workers, April Bailes.
- In August 2009, Rollins purchased a truck and a life insurance policy covering both himself and his wife, Teresa Rollins, for up to $50,000.
- On September 4, 2009, thirty days before her death, Rollins increased his and his wife's life insurance coverage, seeking a $300,000 increase for accidental death for his wife, stating, 'all I’m looking for is just the accidental.'
- On the morning of October 5, 2009, Rollins claimed he last saw his wife before he left to work on the property.
- Around 11:30 a.m., after working in the fields with his farm hands, Rollins went to look for his wife.
- Rollins claimed he discovered Teresa's body pinned underwater in a pond by a fallen tree, then ran to get help and used a tractor to move the tree.
- A friend of Teresa Rollins, Jimmy Thompson, had witnessed Rollins physically abuse Teresa in the months before her death and had photographed bruises she said Rollins inflicted.
- Shortly after her own arrest in October 2011, April Bailes told police that on the morning of Teresa's death, Rollins confessed to killing her and threatened Bailes and her daughter if she did not cooperate with his plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Lee Rollins was indicted for the first-degree murder of his wife, Teresa Rollins, in September 2011.
- A jury trial was held in the Circuit Court of Nicholas County, West Virginia (the court of first instance).
- At trial, the defense argued that Teresa Rollins's death was a tragic accident caused by a falling tree.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Rollins guilty of first-degree murder and did not recommend mercy.
- Following the verdict, the circuit court sentenced Rollins to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
- Rollins, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing several assignments of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of prior acts of domestic violence under Rule 404(b) to prove absence of accident constitute reversible error when the defendant's theory is that the death was an accident in which he was not involved?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The admission of prior acts of domestic violence to prove absence of accident does not constitute reversible error, even when the defendant's theory posits an accident in which he was not involved. The court found that under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b), such evidence is permissible to rebut a defendant's claim that the death was an accident. The court distinguished this case from precedent requiring a defendant's involvement in the accident, citing State v. Mongold, which allowed prior bad acts evidence to rebut multiple accident theories, some of which did not involve the defendant's active participation. The trial court properly followed the procedure outlined in State v. McGinnis, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior abuse occurred and concluding after a Rule 403 balancing test that the evidence's probative value in rebutting the accident defense outweighed its prejudicial effect. The court also rejected Rollins's other assignments of error, finding that challenges to a prosecutor's remark and juror bias were waived, and claims of cumulative evidence and unfair surprise were without merit.
Concurring - Workman, J.
Yes, I concur with the majority's result, but write separately to emphasize that the trial court's analysis of the domestic violence evidence was correct and thorough. The victim's statements identifying Rollins as the source of her bruises were not hearsay because they were offered for identification purposes, not for the truth of the matter asserted. Even if they were hearsay, they would be admissible under the present sense impression or residual exceptions. Evidence of prior domestic violence is critically important in such cases to show motive, intent, and absence of accident, as it is inextricably intertwined with the charged crime and necessary to complete the story.
Concurring - Loughry, J.
Yes, I concur with the majority's result, but write separately to clarify two points. First, the prosecutor’s closing remark was not improper vouching but a direct and invited response to the defense counsel's argument that a key witness was lying in exchange for leniency, so there was no error, plain or otherwise. Second, the court was correct to admit the Rule 404(b) evidence; prior bad acts are admissible to show absence of accident even where the defendant's accident theory does not involve his own conduct, as supported by State v. Mongold and State v. Meadows. The trial court's well-reasoned decision to admit this evidence to rebut Rollins's falling tree theory was not an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and potentially broadens the 'absence of accident' exception under Rule 404(b) in West Virginia jurisprudence. By holding that prior bad acts can rebut an accident defense even when the defendant claims no participation in the event, the court gives prosecutors a powerful tool to counter defense theories that attribute a death to external or natural causes. The ruling effectively allows evidence of a defendant's violent character toward the victim to be introduced to show that an otherwise plausible 'freak accident' was likely not an accident at all. This will impact defense strategy in homicide cases, as raising an accident defense may now more readily open the door to damaging prior-act evidence.
