State of West Virginia v. Alex James McDonald, 16-0053

Background

Defendant Alex J. McDonald was director of a community theater; during a dress rehearsal he touched a minor cast member (K.B.)—grabbing her chest and later touching her buttock—and thereafter sent sexually suggestive texts to her.
K.B. eventually reported the conduct; police investigated and McDonald was charged with battery, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, first-degree sexual abuse, and sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust.
The State offered a plea: no contest to battery and contributing to the delinquency of a minor; other charges dismissed; State reserved the right to prove the battery was sexually motivated (potentially triggering sex-offender registration).
At sentencing, the court held a contested hearing on sexual motivation: defense called a witness who denied inappropriate touching; State presented officer testimony, a social worker interview, K.B.’s mother’s statement, and the defendant’s sexually explicit texts.
The circuit court found the battery was sexually motivated, imposed consecutive six-month jail terms, and ordered McDonald to register as a sex offender; defendant appealed arguing error as to sexual-motivation findings and hearsay/confrontation issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contributing to the delinquency conviction was found to be sexually motivated	State sought sexual-motivation finding only as to battery	McDonald argued court orally stated both offenses were sexually motivated	Court held written orders controlled and they found only battery sexually motivated; assignment of error meritless
Whether battery was proven sexually motivated beyond a reasonable doubt	State relied on officer and social worker testimony, victim’s mother statement, and explicit texts showing sexual intent	McDonald pointed to defense witness who said only shoulder was touched and denied inappropriate contact	Court held State’s evidence credible and sufficient; finding not clearly erroneous
Admissibility of victim statements (hearsay) at the sexual-motivation/sentencing hearing	State admitted victim statements via trooper at sentencing to show motivation and facts relevant to sentencing	McDonald contended statements were testimonial hearsay and violated confrontation rights	Court held Rules of Evidence generally do not apply at sentencing; confrontation right applies to trials, not sentencing; admission proper in this context
Standard of review for sexual-motivation finding	N/A	McDonald argued insufficiency of proof and evidentiary errors	Court applied beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for sexual motivation and deferred to trial judge on credibility; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hinchman, 214 W.Va. 624, 591 S.E.2d 182 (W. Va. 2003) (standards of review for circuit court findings and final orders)
State v. Seen, 235 W.Va. 174, 772 S.E.2d 359 (W. Va. 2015) (governs evidentiary standard for sexual-motivation findings)
Legg v. Felinton, 219 W.Va. 478, 637 S.E.2d 576 (W. Va. 2006) (a court speaks through its written orders; written order controls over oral statements)
State v. White, 188 W.Va. 534, 425 S.E.2d 210 (W. Va. 1992) (precedent on written orders controlling oral statements)
State v. Whalen, 214 W.Va. 299, 588 S.E.2d 677 (W. Va. 2003) (sexual-motivation finding requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and opportunity to contest)
State v. Houston, 197 W.Va. 215, 475 S.E.2d 307 (W. Va. 1996) (factfinder’s role in weighing evidence and credibility)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (W. Va. 1995) (same; credibility determinations for trier of fact)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W. Va. 1997) (reviewing court will not second-guess credibility findings)
State v. Trail, 236 W.Va. 167, 778 S.E.2d 616 (W. Va. 2015) (Rules of Evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings)
State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (W. Va. 1996) (recognition that evidentiary rules are limited at sentencing)
State v. McLaughlin, 226 W.Va. 229, 700 S.E.2d 289 (W. Va. 2010) (broad admissibility at mercy/sentencing phase)
Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1986) (right to confrontation serves trial reliability; not directed at sentencing proceedings)