Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; October 12, 2007; West Virginia; State Supreme Court
Thomas Joseph MacPhee appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, stemming from the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation of mercy for the murder conviction and 1 to 5 years for conspiracy, with both sentences to be served consecutively. Additionally, he was convicted of grand larceny related to the victim, Lori Ann Keaton's, death, but did not appeal that conviction.
MacPhee argues that the jury's verdict should be overturned due to insufficient evidence for premeditation in the murder conviction and for lacking proof of an agreement with Danny Wade England to murder Keaton. After reviewing the trial evidence in favor of the prosecution, the Court finds MacPhee's claims unpersuasive.
The factual background reveals that Lori Ann Keaton, aged 46, and her husband moved to McDowell County in 2002. They sold a house to MacPhee and his wife, after which they developed a social relationship. Tensions arose between James R. Keaton and England over England’s interest in Lori, compounded by financial disputes regarding money Lori had given to England. Lori disappeared on January 30, 2003, shortly after indicating plans to visit her children in Michigan. Despite extensive searches, her body was never found, nor was any of her money, although her dog was later returned to her family.
In February 2003, MacPhee informed the State Police that he was unaware of Lori Ann Keaton's whereabouts. By April 2003, a hunter reported a suspected shallow grave in Wilmore, located 8 to 10 miles from MacPhee's residence. Although no body was found, personal items belonging to Lori, including a jacket and a blood-stained piece of blue-jean material, were recovered. DNA from the stain matched Lori's family DNA. In May 2003, Lori's car was discovered at Kenneth Jerry Wood's residence, covered with a tarp and missing its license plate. Wood testified that MacPhee had left the car there in January 2003, claiming it belonged to his wife and asking for safe storage while moving from New Jersey.
On May 13, 2003, police questioned MacPhee regarding Lori's whereabouts, during which Wood identified him as the person who left the car at his house. MacPhee then made a series of statements implicating Danny Wade England in Lori's murder, claiming he did not witness the shooting but helped conceal her body. He recounted an argument between Lori and England, a subsequent gunshot, and the discovery of Lori bleeding on the floor. Fearing England, MacPhee participated in concealing the body by cleaning up blood, wrapping Lori in plastic and blankets, and disposing of evidence in his yard before burying her in Wilmore.
MacPhee later drove Lori's car to Wood's residence and released her dog near Salem, Virginia. After consenting to a search, police collected a bloodstain from his home matching Lori's DNA and found her missing license plate buried in his yard. On December 18, 2003, a grand jury indicted MacPhee and England for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, with MacPhee also charged with grand larceny of the car. MacPhee's trial began on April 25, 2005, where his police statements, recorded on May 13 and 14, 2003, were admitted as evidence.
Appellant MacPhee was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with a recommendation of mercy, conspiracy, and grand larceny. His motions for acquittal and a new trial were denied. Following a court order on June 13, 2005, MacPhee was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with additional sentences of 1 to 5 years for conspiracy and 1 to 10 years for grand larceny, all to be served consecutively. The sentences were reimposed on May 2, 2006, for appeal purposes, and his appeal was granted in January 2007.
MacPhee argues that the jury's verdict should be overturned due to insufficient evidence of premeditation for the murder charge and insufficient evidence of agreement for the conspiracy charge, asserting he was outside during the shooting and unaware it would happen. He does not challenge the admissibility of his recorded statements or the search of his property and does not claim any jury instruction errors. The appellate court's role is to assess whether the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in favor of the prosecution, could convince a reasonable person of MacPhee’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite denying involvement in the shooting, MacPhee acknowledges that the homicide occurred in his home, and he participated in concealing the body and cleaning up the scene with an accomplice. He claims this involvement makes him an accessory after the fact rather than a principal or an accessory before the fact, arguing that premeditation and agreement cannot be ascribed to him. The court’s precedent indicates that a defendant can be convicted based on their role in the crime, whether as a principal or an accessory, and that presence at the crime scene and actions before and after the crime are significant factors in determining guilt.
W. Va. Code § 61-11-6 establishes that in felony offenses, all principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact are punishable as principals in the first degree, while accessories after the fact face lesser penalties. A principal in the first degree is the actual perpetrator, whereas a principal in the second degree is someone who aids or abets the crime. The terms "principal in the second degree" and "aider and abettor" are interchangeable.
In the case involving appellant MacPhee, witness Jerry Denver Massey testified that MacPhee confessed to him about beating a woman to death, robbing her, and disposing of her body in a mine shaft. MacPhee's defense argued that Massey's testimony lacked credibility due to his motivation for a plea deal, yet the defense did not seek to strike Massey’s testimony. The Circuit Court noted the jury's discretion in weighing Massey's statements, acknowledging inconsistencies regarding the manner of the victim's death. Furthermore, MacPhee's video statements contained evidence that contradicted his claims of mere after-the-fact involvement, as he described finding the victim's body wrapped in his front yard without knowing how she was killed.
MacPhee's statements during video recordings outline critical details surrounding Lori's death. He asserts that an argument occurred between Lori and England at his house regarding money. After stepping outside, MacPhee heard a gunshot and, believing Lori to be dead, attempted to call 911 but was stopped by England. He confirms that the shotgun used belonged to England and had been left at his residence prior to the shooting. MacPhee also admits to deciding to relocate Lori's car, a Mercury Grand Marquis, to Kenneth Jerry Wood's residence instead of disposing of it in a mine shaft. He later discussed with England the need to move Lori's body from its initial location.
In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence for MacPhee's conviction, the court emphasized that it must be viewed favorably toward the prosecution. Despite MacPhee's inconsistent statements, physical evidence corroborated his presence at the crime scene and his efforts to conceal the murder. Testimony from Massey, who indicated that MacPhee confessed to killing a woman, supports the prosecution's case. The jury, tasked with determining witness credibility, rejected MacPhee's claims of having left the room before the shooting. Ultimately, the evidence was deemed sufficient to uphold MacPhee's convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy, affirming the Circuit Court's decisions. Additionally, testimony revealed that Lori typically traveled with large amounts of cash, but neither her nor England's shotguns were definitively linked to the murder weapon. MacPhee's sale of a shotgun after Lori's disappearance raised questions about its possible connection to the case.
Murder in the first degree under W. Va. Code § 61-2-1 (1991) can arise from a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing or through the commission of specific felonies, including robbery, establishing felony murder as an alternative means. In MacPhee's case, the grand jury's murder charge included both theories, but during the trial, the State retracted the felony murder reference, focusing instead on grand larceny for the alleged theft of Lori Ann Keaton's car. Conspiracy, as outlined in W. Va. Code § 61-10-31 (1971), requires an agreement to commit an offense and an overt act towards that goal, which may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
MacPhee argued insufficient evidence and claimed reversible error due to inflammatory prosecutor remarks and lack of independent evidence establishing the corpus delicti, which necessitates proof of a human death and criminal causation. Under Syllabus Point 4 of State v. Hall, both elements must be established, and, as reiterated in Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Garrett, a confession alone is insufficient without corroboration. The evidence presented included MacPhee's statements and physical evidence linking him to the crime. However, the Court clarified that the appeal was limited to claims regarding insufficient evidence of premeditation and conspiratorial agreement.
Syllabus point 2 of LaRock establishes that in sufficiency challenges by criminal defendants, all evidence must be assessed from the prosecutor's perspective, favoring reasonable inferences that support a guilty verdict. The trial judge is tasked with resolving conflicts and credibility issues in favor of the prosecution and selecting the strongest inference that aligns with the prosecution’s theory of guilt. Additionally, W. Va.Code 61-2-5a(a) outlines that anyone who knowingly conceals or aids in concealing a deceased human body resulting from criminal activity is guilty of a felony; however, this statute does not apply to the current case.
Commentary from LaFave highlights that a principal in the second degree must be present during the crime and must aid or encourage the principal in the first degree. This presence can be constructive, allowing for support from a distance, so long as the individual is close enough to provide assistance if necessary.
During a June 3, 2005, hearing on appellant MacPhee's post-trial motions, the Circuit Court inquired about the intended location for a vehicle, suggesting a mine shaft. Testimony indicated that MacPhee and another individual assaulted the victim in her home, although it was revealed that MacPhee had purchased the victim's house. The court clarified that the porch of MacPhee's house is a small enclosure, and the distance from the porch to the location of England and Lori inside the house during the shooting was measured in feet. MacPhee's recorded statement indicated he could hear the argument between Lori and England from outside the house.
