State of West Virginia v. Johnnie Ray Farley, 238 W. Va. 596

Farley confessed to murdering his wife on September 25, 2014 at his Mercer County farm after a noncustodial interview, burial of the body on the farm, and disposal of evidence.
On October 3, 2014, Farley voluntarily went to the police detachment for a third interview; he was told he was not under arrest and later signed a Miranda waiver before confessing.
The interrogation began at the police station, continued to a farm trip, and culminated in a written consent to search; a subsequent drive to the farm occurred after a brief delay for logistics.
Prior to trial, Farley moved to suppress the October 3 confession and sought suppression and testing of forensic samples; the circuit court ruled Farley was not in custody and denied suppression.
At trial, the State presented extensive circumstantial evidence and Farley’s confession; the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder without mercy; the circuit court denied a new-trial motion and he was sentenced to life without parole.
On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no reversible error in the denial of suppression, evidentiary rulings, or bifurcation, and upheld the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the October 3 confession was admissible despite an alleged request for counsel	Farley argues he invoked counsel and was in custody during interrogation	State contends there was no custody and Miranda rights did not attach	Confession admissible; no custody and rights not attached
Whether the State’s loss of right-hand fingernail scrapings required dismissal or a jury instruction	Osakalumi breach warranted dismissal or adverse inference	Evidence was irrelevant; no plausible exculpatory value	No reversible error; no duty to dismiss; no instruction warranted
Whether evidence under Rule 404(b) was improperly admitted or prejudicial	Evidence of prior threats and misconduct should be excluded under 404(b) and 403	Evidence intrinsic to the crime and probative for motive and context	Admission proper; intrinsic/res gestae evidence; not unfairly prejudicial
Whether the trial should have been bifurcated into guilt and mercy phases	Bifurcation would allow mercy arguments without tainting guilt phase	No sufficient basis to delay or separate phases	No abuse of discretion; denial of bifurcation affirmed

State v. Middleton, 220 W.Va. 89 ((2006)) (noncustodial questioning allowed when not involuntary)
State v. Bradshaw, 193 W.Va. 519 ((1995)) (Miranda rights outside custodial context not required; warnings must be repeated if custodial later occurs)
State v. Blair, 158 W.Va. 647 ((1975)) (harmless-error standard for constitutional rights violations)
State v. Osakalumi, 194 W.Va. 758 ((1995)) (duty to preserve evidence and Osakalumi framework for consequences)
State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 ((1996)) (factors for bifurcation; sentencing and merits considerations)
State v. Flippo, 212 W.Va. 560 ((2002)) (inevitable discovery doctrine applicability)
State v. Ferguson, 165 W.Va. 529 ((1980)) (res gestae admissibility near in time and connected to the crime)
State v. McKinley, 234 W.Va. 143 ((2014)) (context evidence admissibility for complete story of the crime)
State v. Harris, 230 W.Va. 717 ((2013)) (intrinsic evidence rule and Rule 404(b) considerations)