State of West Virginia v. Marcus Patrele McKinley
234 W. Va. 143
| W. Va. | 2014Background
- McKinley was convicted of first-degree murder in Mercer County and sentenced to life without parole.
- Victim Ayanna Patton began a violent dating relationship with McKinley around 2007–2008; a child was born into the relationship and DHHR removed the child to Patton’s mother.
- Patton obtained a protective order in May 2011; McKinley violated it by contacting Patton and later visiting her apartment.
- On May 19, 2011, McKinley shot Patton five times at her apartment and fled toward North Carolina, making incriminating statements during the escape.
- A conflict of interest involving the prosecutor led to the appointment of a special prosecutor; a plea for second-degree murder was rejected; the trial was a unitary proceeding with 40+ witnesses; the jury convicted McKinley of first-degree murder without mercy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of two prior domestic violence incidents | McKinley argues the evidence was improperly admitted | McKinley contends the acts were not admissible under Rule 404(b) | Correct admission upheld: intrinsic or probative as motive/intent under Rule 404(b) |
| Admission of additional domestic violence evidence by McKinley in rebuttal | State opened the door by McKinley’s other acts evidence | McKinley’s acts should be barred as irrelevant | Harmless error: curative rule did not require reversal; evidence cumulative and properly rebutted |
| Testimony from social worker (Dorsey) and letter | Letter and testimony were relevant to Patton’s state of mind and abuse history | Letter reading was improper lay opinion/inadmissible | Abuse of discretion in reading entire letter; harmless error; overall admissibility sustained; letters limited to context |
| Excluded psychiatric testimony on extreme emotional disturbance/diminished capacity | Extreme emotional disturbance could support diminished capacity | Evidence did not meet the standard for diminished capacity | Court did not abuse discretion; extreme emotional disturbance insufficient to establish diminished capacity |
| Rejection of plea agreement | State sought plea consistent with justice and victim’s interests | Court must enforce plea if voluntary and intelligent | No error: trial court properly rejected plea considering public interest and record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferguson, 165 W. Va. 529 (1980) (res gestae admissibility (timing/causal connection))
- LaRock v. State, 196 W. Va. 294 (1996) (intrinsic/extrinsic evidence; context and motive)
- Guthrie v. State, 194 W. Va. 657 (1995) (curative admissibility; door-opening evidence)
- Walker v. Doe, 210 W. Va. 490 (2001) (precedential value of signed vs per curiam opinions; publication standards)
- Joseph v. State, 214 W. Va. 525 (2003) (diminished capacity framework; necessity for mental disease/defect)
- Myers v. Frazier, 173 W. Va. 658 (1984) (public interest in plea bargains; court discretion)
- Harris v. State, 230 W. Va. 717 (2013) (Rule 404(b) intrinsic/extrinsic considerations)