State of West Virginia v. Kenneth Eugene Carter

Citations: 232 W. Va. 97; 750 S.E.2d 650; 2013 WL 5814128; 2013 W. Va. LEXIS 1150Docket: 12-0777

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; October 25, 2013; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (No. 12-0777), Kenneth Eugene Carter appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and malicious wounding, resulting from a jury trial in May 2012. The Court affirmed the convictions, which stemmed from an incident on July 20, 2011, where Carter brutally attacked Ronald Ian Forton with a baseball bat, causing fatal injuries, and also assaulted Bradie Dunlap, Forton's domestic partner, rendering him unconscious. The trial included testimony from Dunlap, who described his prior relationship with Carter, which began at a homeless shelter, and noted that Carter had made unfounded accusations regarding his and Forton's relationship with Carter's wife. The Court highlighted its review standards: de novo for motions to dismiss indictments, with a "clearly erroneous" standard for factual findings when an evidentiary hearing occurs, and affirmed that evidence must be viewed in favor of the prosecution to determine conviction sufficiency.

Mr. Dunlap testified about multiple violent incidents involving the defendant, including a threatening episode where the defendant chased Mr. Forton with a brick and a more severe incident where, after drinking, the defendant brandished a hammer and struck Mr. Forton with his fist instead. Following these altercations, the defendant was arrested after Mr. Dunlap called the police. In July 2011, after the defendant had been evicted and his wife was hospitalized, he temporarily stayed with Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Forton. 

On the night of July 19, 2011, after consuming vodka, the defendant became aggressive, accusing Mr. Dunlap of an affair with his wife. In a heated exchange, Mr. Dunlap sarcastically confirmed the accusation, prompting the defendant to strike him twice on the head with a baseball bat. Mr. Dunlap later called 911, initially claiming he had fallen due to fear of the defendant's potential violence. However, he later revealed the truth about the attack to paramedics and police, expressing concern for Mr. Forton’s safety. Hospital records showed Mr. Dunlap sustained serious injuries, including skull and limb fractures. Two days after the incident, police found Mr. Forton deceased in the apartment, leading Mr. Dunlap to express a desire for the defendant to be held accountable, even suggesting he might fabricate evidence to assist the prosecution.

Mr. Dunlap acknowledged at trial that his earlier lie was ineffective, stating he “didn’t see it.” The State presented testimony from an inmate who shared a cell with the defendant, revealing that the defendant admitted to committing murder and malicious assault. The defendant described how he attacked Mr. Forton while he slept, using a bat, and demonstrated the act in the cell. Following the assault, he expressed frustration over prior remarks made by Mr. Dunlap and suggested more violent actions he could have taken. The jury found the defendant guilty without recommending mercy, resulting in a life sentence without parole for murder and an additional 2-10 years for malicious wounding. The defendant appealed, claiming the indictment was based on “perjured testimony” and lacked sufficient evidence. The court detailed its review standards for motions to dismiss indictments, emphasizing that the validity of an indictment cannot be challenged based on the quality of evidence presented to the grand jury. Detective Andrew Foster testified about the investigation, noting Mr. Dunlap’s account of the defendant attacking Mr. Forton with a baseball bat and also striking Mr. Dunlap multiple times when he attempted to intervene. The court found no reversible error regarding the indictment.

Mr. Dunlap admitted that his statement to police, which he later reaffirmed under oath, was fabricated. During a pretrial hearing, he acknowledged that he lied about witnessing the defendant's actions, claiming he thought it would aid law enforcement, referring to it as a "little white lie" that could have serious consequences for the defendant. Although this false statement was presented to the grand jury, the court found no reversible error. It emphasized that challenges to indictments based on evidence sufficiency are generally not subject to judicial review, especially if the grand jury was legally constituted and unbiased. The defendant did not demonstrate bias or misconduct in the grand jury process, nor did he provide evidence that the prosecutor was aware of Mr. Dunlap's falsehood at the time of testimony. The court reiterated that a grand jury's finding of sufficient evidence is not typically reviewable. Despite the defendant's concerns about the false testimony, a jury ultimately convicted him after being made aware of Mr. Dunlap's initial lie. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's argument regarding the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, concluding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the charges, applying a de novo review standard consistent with established jurisprudence.

The inquiry centers on whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence favorably towards the prosecution, could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A convicted defendant claiming evidentiary insufficiency faces significant challenges; if the evidence allows a rational jury to establish the conviction's essential elements, the defendant’s claim fails. The court will reverse only if no rational trier of fact could have reached such a conclusion. In reviewing the case, there is sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find the defendant guilty, including the defendant's admission to a fellow inmate about killing Mr. Forton and testimony from Mr. Dunlap regarding an assault with a baseball bat. The defendant's challenge to the credibility of these witnesses is not for the court to decide, as it is the jury's role.

Additionally, the defendant contests the trial court's admission of two prior acts of violence against Mr. Forton under Rule 404(b). These incidents involved a threat with a hammer and a physical assault, as well as an incident where the defendant brandished a brick, causing Mr. Forton to flee. The defendant also claims error during cross-examination regarding his arrest related to the brick incident, arguing it violated a pretrial stipulation against introducing domestic abuse evidence. However, the court found this testimony was not responsive to the prosecutor's question, and thus the argument lacks merit. The admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) follows a three-step analysis: reviewing for clear error the factual determination of the other acts, a de novo review of their legitimate purpose, and assessing for an abuse of discretion regarding the evidence's probative versus prejudicial value under Rule 403.

In State v. Willett, the court upheld the trial court's admission of Rule 404(b) evidence, emphasizing the standard of reviewing such evidence favorably towards the offering party. The evidence presented included testimony from Mr. Dunlap regarding two incidents where the defendant threatened Mr. Forton with a brick and a hammer, reflecting a pattern of violent behavior linked to accusations of infidelity. The trial court found sufficient evidence to support the occurrence of these prior acts and determined that their admission served a legitimate purpose related to the defendant's intent. The jury was instructed to consider this evidence solely for the issue of intent, reinforcing that the defendant was not on trial for those prior offenses. The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. Additionally, the defendant raised several other assignments of error, including claims of prosecutorial misconduct, conflict of interest, jury contamination, and denial of a new trial based on untested DNA evidence; however, the court found no merit in these claims. The defendant's convictions and sentences were ultimately affirmed.