State of West Virginia v. Mark Alan Moran
16-0071
| W. Va. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Mark Alan Moran (27) posted a Craigslist "casual encounters" ad seeking "nsa" sex; an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old female communicated with him.
- Moran repeatedly asked about age, requested photos, arranged to pick the girl up, and admitted in a recorded interview he intended to have sex with the minor.
- Moran was arrested at the agreed meeting spot, gave a recorded statement after Miranda warnings, and was indicted for soliciting a minor via computer.
- Pretrial: Moran claimed entrapment and sought to introduce expert testimony (Dr. Hudson) that he lacked predisposition; he also alleged police brutality at arrest causing a concussion and sought suppression of his statement.
- The trial court limited Dr. Hudson’s testimony (prohibiting testimony that would state legal standards or require a prior act for predisposition), admitted Moran’s recorded statement for the jury to consider, instructed the jury on entrapment/predisposition (but refused Moran’s proposed wording), and the jury convicted Moran.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on predisposition/entrapment | State: court instructions adequate and correct as given | Moran: requested instruction was correct and necessary; court-created instruction misstated law and shifted burdens | Court: refused Moran's proposed instruction; gave its own correct instruction; no reversible error |
| Whether court’s predisposition instruction misstated burden/order | State: predisposition is for jury to decide; instructions reflected prior rulings | Moran: court’s instruction required a finding of inducement first and confused burden/timing of proof | Court: instruction correct and consistent with precedent; a rational jury could find predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility/limitation of Dr. Hudson’s expert testimony | State: expert would improperly opine on legal question (predisposition) and invade jury role | Moran: expert needed to explain psychological factors and show lack of predisposition; limitation prejudiced defense | Court: trial court acted within discretion to limit testimony that would instruct on law; limitation not clearly erroneous; Moran declined to call the expert further |
| Suppression of recorded statement (voluntariness) | State: statement was voluntary; medical records and testimony do not show incapacity | Moran: alleged being slammed during arrest causing concussion, impairing capacity to waive rights and make coherent statements | Court: factual findings supported admission; jury could consider alleged injuries; denial of suppression not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Houston, 197 W.Va. 215, 475 S.E.2d 307 (W.Va. 1996) (entrapment/predisposition burden rules and when acquittal is appropriate)
- State v. Hinkle, 200 W.Va. 280, 489 S.E.2d 257 (W.Va. 1996) (standards for review of jury instruction rulings)
- State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (W.Va. 1994) (refusal to give requested instruction reversible only in narrow circumstances)
- Helmick v. Potomac Edison Co., 185 W.Va. 269, 406 S.E.2d 700 (W.Va. 1991) (trial court discretion on expert testimony admissibility)
- Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 215 W.Va. 634, 600 S.E.2d 346 (W.Va. 2004) (expert witnesses may not give opinions on questions of domestic law)