State of West Virginia v. Elizabeth Shanton, 16-0266

Background

Elizabeth Shanton, a long-time Shepherd University administrator, was issued a state P-Card and charged after an audit and investigation alleging improper P-Card purchases totaling about $85,000. A jury convicted her on 15 counts under W. Va. Code § 12-3-10b; she was sentenced to 1–5 years (suspended) with five years probation and restitution.
The indictment initially contained 54 counts (one fraudulent scheme count and 53 P-Card counts); pretrial dismissal and a writ to this Court over double-jeopardy issues culminated in Lorenzetti, which held separate purchases were distinct offenses.
Trial evidence included extensive forensic and financial discovery, testimony from the State Auditor’s Office and a Commission investigator (Steve Staton), and hundreds of exhibits; Shanton did not testify and was acquitted on the fraudulent-scheme count and some purchase counts.
On appeal Shanton raised six principal claims: Brady violation (undisclosed audits), solicitation of false testimony to grand/petit juries, improper admission of testimony about “blending,” instructional error for an "excessive"-price theory, facial and as-applied vagueness of § 12-3-10b, and insufficiency of the indictment.
The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed the record, applied Brady and related standards, and affirmed the circuit court in a memorandum decision, finding no substantial question of law or prejudicial error.

Issues

Issue	Shanton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Brady disclosure of Auditor’s Office audits	State suppressed exculpatory/impeachment audits and Shepherd audit material	Shanton had access to voluminous discovery; no proof of suppression or material prejudice	No Brady violation; suppression not shown and prejudice speculative
Alleged false testimony to grand/petit juries	Investigator Staton presented misleading/false testimony about whether students received gifts	Inconsistencies do not show willful grand-jury fraud; discrepancies could be addressed at trial	No relief; no prima facie showing of willful or intentional fraud before grand jury
Admission of “blending” testimony (variance)	Blending introduced a new fraud theory not in indictment; prejudicial variance	Testimony explained how fraudulent purchases could be concealed; admissible background/context	No material variance; blending was explanatory and did not mislead or prejudice defense
Jury instruction on "excessive" purchases	"Excessive" is vague/subjective and was not defined in rules or indictment	Term is sufficiently definite in context; instruction and burden of proof were adequate	Instruction as a whole was adequate; no reversible instructional error
Vagueness of § 12-3-10b (facial and as-applied)	Statute and P-Card rules fail to give fair notice; constitutionally vague	Statute is unambiguous and must be construed to uphold constitutionality	Statute upheld; not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied
Indictment sufficiency	Indictment failed to give fair notice of charges	Indictment sufficiently alleged elements and notice; Lorenzetti controls	Indictment sufficient under Wallace standards; claim rejected

Key Cases Cited

State v. Black, 227 W.Va. 297 (W.Va. 2010) (Brady framework and related precedent)
State v. Youngblood, 221 W.Va. 20 (W.Va. 2007) (Brady suppression and materiality standards)
Lorenzetti v. Sanders, 235 W.Va. 353 (W.Va. 2015) (separate purchases are distinct offenses for double-jeopardy)
State ex rel. Pinson v. Maynard, 181 W.Va. 662 (W.Va. 1989) (limits on probing grand-jury evidence absent prima facie showing of fraud)
United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2007) (petit verdict cures potential grand-jury defects)
State v. Corra, 223 W.Va. 573 (W.Va. 2009) (variance vs. constructive amendment analysis)
State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 (W.Va. 1996) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 (W.Va. 1995) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
State v. Wallace, 205 W.Va. 155 (W.Va. 1999) (indictment sufficiency test)