State of West Virginia v. Ennis C. Payne II
239 W. Va. 247
| W. Va. | 2016Background
- Ennis C. Payne II was indicted for first-degree (felony) murder and conspiracy to commit burglary arising from a January 13, 2010 killing; tried November 2014 and convicted (life with mercy; conspiracy 1–5 years).
- Key physical evidence: a Pittsburgh Pirates cap found near the victim’s apartment, surveillance video showing Payne wearing a similar cap before (and not after) the killing, a .25‑caliber casing at the scene, boot impressions, and boots/shoes seized from Payne’s residence pursuant to a search warrant.
- Payne had stayed intermittently at Timothy Starks’ house; Payne left a Carhartt jacket there. Starks consented to a police search of his home; officers found the jacket and an ammunition magazine in a pocket.
- Sergeant Cox submitted an affidavit for a warrant to search Payne’s residence listing items including boots, jackets, .25‑caliber firearms/ammunition, and clothing; a warrant issued and boots/shoes were seized.
- Pretrial, Payne repeatedly refused to cooperate (refused passive restraints and street clothes), threatened people, and created security concerns; when he declined to dress in provided street clothes he was brought into voir dire in jail clothing and restraints after the court warned him.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Payne's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Legality of search/seizure at Starks’ home (jacket & magazine) | Starks validly consented to search first floor; Payne abandoned jacket by leaving it in common area, so no reasonable expectation of privacy | Starks lacked authority over Payne’s personal jacket; seizure of items from jacket pocket exceeded scope and violated Matlock principles | Denied suppression; court held Payne lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in abandoned jacket and had no standing to challenge the search |
| 2) Probable cause for search warrant of Payne’s residence | Affidavit (surveillance placing Payne near scene, hat found at scene, .25 magazine found in jacket) supported nexus and, under totality of circumstances, probable cause; any misstatements immaterial | Affidavit lacked nexus between Payne’s residence and listed items, relied on uncorroborated hearsay and conclusory hat ownership statement; warrant insufficient on four‑corners review | Denied suppression; court found affidavit adequate under totality‑of‑circumstances and magistrate entitled to deference |
| 3) Motion for change of venue based on pretrial publicity | Publicity insufficient to show present hostile sentiment countywide; voir dire showed jurors unbiased | Extensive local publicity and small community made fair trial impossible without venue change | Denied; court found no abuse of discretion—voir dire revealed only two jurors had heard coverage and neither had fixed opinions |
| 4) Appearance in jail clothes and restraints during voir dire | Payne waived right by refusing offered street clothes and humane restraints despite warnings; court reasonably balanced security and presence rights | Compulsory jail attire and visible restraints violated presumption of innocence (Estelle) and prejudiced jury | Denied; court concluded Payne knowingly and intelligently waived the right and his presence at voir dire was required; admonition to jury mitigated potential prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lacy, 196 W.Va. 104, 468 S.E.2d 719 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for suppression rulings; deference to circuit court factual findings)
- State v. Lilly, 194 W.Va. 595, 461 S.E.2d 101 (W. Va. 1995) (probable‑cause/warrant standards; totality of circumstances; misrepresentations in affidavit)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (consent to search by third party with common authority)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (overnight guest expectation of privacy limited by host’s control)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (defendant may not be compelled to stand trial in identifiable prison clothing)