State of West Virginia v. James B., 15-0853

In January 2011 the victim attempted to leave petitioner; petitioner restrained, sexually assaulted, videotaped, choked, and threatened her; she escaped and later sought a domestic violence protective order in which she testified to these events.
In October 2014 a grand jury indicted petitioner on abduction and second-degree sexual assault; trial occurred in January 2015.
Before trial the State moved to admit the 2011 domestic-violence hearing recording and the victim’s testimony about prior incidents under Rule 404(b); the circuit court treated much of that testimony as intrinsic evidence and also admissible under 404(b).
At trial a friend/former co-worker testified she had observed the victim’s bruises, ripped clothing, and chest wounds on multiple occasions; petitioner objected to parts of that testimony as speculative.
The jury convicted petitioner on both counts; he was sentenced to consecutive terms (10–25 years for abduction; 3–10 years for second-degree sexual assault) plus ten years supervised release.
On appeal petitioner challenged (1) admission of the victim’s testimony about prior acts of violence and (2) admission of the friend’s testimony about observing bruises; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of victim’s testimony about prior abuse	State: testimony is intrinsic to charged crimes and, alternatively, admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive, absence of mistake, and context	Petitioner: prior-act testimony was prejudicial propensity evidence and should have been excluded under Rule 404(b)	Court: testimony was intrinsic/res gestae and also admissible under 404(b); admission was not an abuse of discretion
Admissibility of friend’s lay testimony about bruises	State: lay witness was qualified by observation to describe bruises and their nonaccidental appearance; relevant to pattern and context	Petitioner: witness lacked expertise on bruise origin, was speculative, and observations predated indictment by years	Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; lay witness may testify to observations and opinion when better informed than jurors; weight for jury

State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640 (2000) (standard of appellate review: abuse of discretion for trial rulings; clearly erroneous for factual findings)
State v. McKinley, 234 W.Va. 143 (2014) (res gestae/intrinsic evidence admissible when near in time and causally connected)
State v. Harris, 230 W.Va. 717 (2010) (intrinsic evidence not governed by Rule 404(b))
State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 (1996) (prior-act evidence intrinsic when inextricably intertwined or necessary preliminaries)
State v. Dennis, 216 W.Va. 331 (2004) (prior domestic-violence testimony admissible to provide context and complete the story of the crimes)
Lewis v. Mosorjak, 143 W.Va. 648 (1958) (trial court has discretion to admit lay opinion when witness has special familiarity)
State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147 (1994) (procedures for in-camera hearings on 404(b) evidence)