State v. Winebarger
617 S.E.2d 467, 217 W. Va. 117, 2005 W. Va. LEXIS 25 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Trial courts possess broad discretion in admitting evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b) to prove intent or absence of mistake, and such evidence is not inadmissible solely due to remoteness in time. Furthermore, a party cannot complain of error that was invited by their own vigorous examination or pursuit of a line of questioning.
Facts:
- Appellant Dewey Daniel Winebarger and his wife, Regina, owned several small businesses in McDowell County, West Virginia, and Dewey occasionally carried a handgun for personal protection.
- On the evening of December 23, 2001, Dewey and Regina had loaned their automobiles to their daughter and son-in-law, Kenny Price, with instructions not to take them to Joe’s Bar.
- While driving home, Dewey and Regina observed their vehicles parked outside Joe’s Bar, so they took the cars home, leaving their daughter and Kenny Price to find other transportation.
- Kenny Price later arrived at Dewey’s home, where an argument ensued between Dewey and Kenny regarding the use of the vehicles.
- Dewey maintained that Kenny Price was intoxicated and became violent and aggressive during the altercation.
- Dewey contended that he attempted to use his .22 caliber derringer to fire a warning shot into the air, but the bullet struck Kenny Price in the neck, fatally wounding him.
Procedural Posture:
- Dewey Daniel Winebarger was indicted for first-degree murder.
- A jury in the Circuit Court of McDowell County found Winebarger guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
- Winebarger was sentenced to ten years.
- Winebarger filed a petition for appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which accepted the appeal on two specific grounds dealing with the introduction of Rule 404(b) evidence.
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 a trial court abuse its discretion by admitting Rule 404(b) evidence of a defendant's prior gun-related acts occurring five to fifteen years before the charged offense, and by denying a motion for a mistrial when hearsay testimony is elicited by defense counsel during re-direct examination?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence or in denying the mistrial. The Court found that the trial court performed a rigorous in camera evaluation and correctly determined that the alleged prior gun-related acts, where Dewey Winebarger brandished a weapon, actually occurred. These acts were admissible for the legitimate purpose of demonstrating Winebarger’s intent and the absence of accident or mistake, and the court provided adequate limiting instructions to the jury. The Court reasoned that remoteness in time, even five to fifteen years, does not necessarily render Rule 404(b) evidence inadmissible, but rather goes to its weight, especially when the prior conduct involved substantially similar circumstances and provocations. Regarding the hearsay testimony from Ms. Pat Price, the Court determined that any error was invited by defense counsel's continued insistence on eliciting an explanation from Ms. Price after the State’s initial questioning on the matter was successfully objected to. The Court further concluded that any error in admitting this testimony was harmless given the voluminous evidence against Winebarger and that there was no manifest necessity to grant a mistrial.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in West Virginia regarding evidentiary rulings, particularly concerning the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence of prior bad acts and the balancing required under Rule 403. It clarifies that remoteness of five to fifteen years, while potentially impacting probative weight, does not automatically preclude admissibility if the acts are relevant to non-propensity purposes like intent or absence of mistake. The ruling also serves as a critical reminder of the "invited error" doctrine, cautioning counsel about the risks of pursuing lines of questioning that could inadvertently introduce otherwise inadmissible or damaging evidence, thereby forfeiting the right to later claim error on appeal.
