State of West Virginia v. Alvaro A. Vilela, 238 W. Va. 11

Victim (Carol Dyall, 75) was reported missing; police traced calls and located her at petitioner Alvaro A. Vilela’s residence where she had been restrained, injured, and transported to a hospital with a fractured arm and bruises.
Officers recovered evidence (screwed‑shut doors/windows, saran wrap, videotaped confession on iPhone, unauthorized credit card charges) and arrested Vilela; Vilela gave a 16‑minute recorded statement after Miranda warnings.
During the recorded interview Vilela asked for a lawyer; Trooper Hill stopped questioning and began to exit the cruiser, and Vilela then initiated further conversation and told the trooper to “go ahead.”
Trial court denied Vilela’s motion to suppress the entire audio statement, finding he recanted his request for counsel by initiating further communication and knowingly waived counsel; the recording (and transcript) were played for the jury.
Jury convicted Vilela of felony kidnapping (life with parole eligibility in ten years, mercy recommended) and misdemeanor attempted extortion; acquitted on other counts. Vilela appealed (challenge to admissibility of post‑invocation statements and sufficiency of evidence).

Issue	State's Argument	Vilela's Argument	Held
Whether post‑invocation portions of the recorded statement were admissible	Vilela initiated further conversation after requesting counsel, thereby validly waiving counsel; Trooper cautioned him and stopped questioning when asked	Trooper’s conduct (refusal to get iPhone unless Vilela waived counsel) coerced a recantation; the post‑invocation admissions (including “I will be going to jail forever”) should be excluded	Court held Vilela recanted by initiating conversation and knowingly waived counsel; statement admitted in full (alternatively, any error harmless)
Whether evidence was sufficient to support kidnapping conviction	Physical injuries, victim testimony, police observations, video confession, secured windows/doors, financial coercion support conviction	Inconsistencies in Dyall’s testimony, lack of recovered weapon, some photographic gaps, and alternative explanations (consent) undermine sufficiency	Court held that viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; sufficiency upheld

State v. Vance, 207 W. Va. 640 (W. Va. 2000) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings and legal questions)
State v. Farley, 192 W. Va. 247 (W. Va. 1994) (de novo review for voluntariness of confession; factual findings afforded deference)
State v. Bradley, 163 W. Va. 148 (W. Va. 1979) (heavy burden on the State when an accused recants a request for counsel)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657 (W. Va. 1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Grimes, 226 W. Va. 411 (W. Va. 2009) (Rule 29 acquittal review and viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor)
State v. Fischer, 158 W. Va. 72 (W. Va. 1976) (evidence must be sufficient for a jury to justifiably find guilt)
State v. McNeal, 162 W. Va. 550 (W. Va. 1978) (once counsel is requested, police must cease direct communication absent counsel)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (once accused requests counsel, further interrogation is improper unless the accused initiates further communication)