McBride v. Lavigne, 737 S.E.2d 560

Mr. Lavigne was convicted in 1996 of first-degree sexual assault, child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, and incest of his six-year-old daughter, KLL.
He filed multiple habeas petitions; an omnibus hearing occurred in 2010, leading the circuit court to vacate the convictions and grant a new trial.
The circuit court found three constitutional errors: an instructional error, improper limitation of character witnesses, and insufficient evidence.
The Warden appealed, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion; Lavigne cross-appealed on two issues the circuit court did not rule on, seeking remand for findings.
On review, the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, ordered Lavigne remanded to custody, and held the circuit court abused its discretion in granting a new trial.
The record showed extensive post-incident testimony and statements indicating the attacker looked like Lavigne, but no direct forensic evidence linked him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Beck instruction and due process	Lavigne argues the Beck instruction misled by presuming identity from uncorroborated testimony.	Lavigne contends the instruction was supportable by the record and the jury instructions as a whole did not mislead.	Beck instruction not error to require corroboration; not a constitutional violation.
Limitation of character witnesses	The four-witness limit deprived Lavigne of a full defense.	Trial court properly balanced admissibility and avoided cumulative evidence under Rule 403.	Circuit court abused discretion restricting witnesses; discrimination in favor of defense discretion.
Sufficiency of the evidence for guilt	Evidence supported Lavigne's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewed in prosecution’s favor.	Lacking physical evidence, the State failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Judgment reversed for habeas; however, appellate standard requires deference—insufficient to overturn in this context.
Remand for unruled issues	Need remand for two issues (competency of KLL to testify and alleged false testimony by Officer Ashcraft) to be ruled.	Waived under Ford v. Coiner; remand not required for unraised issues.	No remand for those issues; waived; no basis to remand.

Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (2006) (three-prong habeas standard: abuse of discretion, clear error, de novo legal review)
Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 (1995) (sufficiency review: any rational inference from record supporting guilt beyond doubt)
LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 (1996) (scope of appellate inference and prosecution-favorable view in sufficiency review)
O’Connell, 163 W.Va. 366 (1979) (presumptively supplying a material element of the crime is error)
Beck, 167 W.Va. 830 (1981) (un corroborated testimony may support conviction for sexual offenses unless inherently incredible)
Hall v. Liller, 207 W.Va. 696 (2000) (examine all instructions as a whole to determine juror guidance)
Jenkins, 195 W.Va. 620 (1995) (limitation of character testimony and defense-rights considerations)
Cannellas v. McKenzie, 160 W.Va. 431 (1977) (habeas review limited to constitutional error; finality concerns)
Thornton, 228 W.Va. 449 (2011) (jury credibility and deference in weighing evidence)