State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. Shawn Satterfield, Defendant Below, Appellant (West Virginia 1995)

Summary

The court affirmed Satterfield's first-degree murder conviction and life sentence with parole eligibility. It held that a suicide note may qualify as a dying declaration when written under an imminent-death belief and concerning the circumstances of that death, subject to relevance and unfair-prejudice review, and found the note admissible. The court also rejected challenges concerning the indictment, jury instructions, venue, juror qualification, closing argument, sequestration, newly discovered evidence, and sufficiency of the evidence.

Holding

Admissibility of the suicide note under the dying-declaration exception. A suicide note may be admitted as a dying declaration when the declarant wrote it while believing death was imminent and the statement concerns the cause or circumstances of the impending death. The note must also satisfy relevance requirements and survive balancing under the unfair-prejudice standard; Moore's note met those requirements.

Indictment and felony-murder instruction. An indictment alleging that the defendant feloniously, willfully, maliciously, deliberately, premeditatedly, and unlawfully killed the victim sufficiently supports a felony-murder conviction without expressly alleging that the killing occurred during a robbery. The court therefore properly instructed on felony murder.

Instruction on involuntary manslaughter. The circuit court properly refused to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter because the trial evidence did not support that instruction.

Change of venue. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying a change of venue. Media and community exposure did not establish that prospective jurors had fixed opinions preventing impartial consideration of the case.

Challenge for cause to prospective juror Northcraft. The court properly denied the challenge for cause because Northcraft repeatedly assured the trial judge that he could decide the case impartially despite his relationships with witnesses, the victim, and the victim's family.

Accomplice testimony instruction. The court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on accomplice testimony because Thomas and Moore could be considered accomplices even though neither defendant and no separately charged codefendant testified.