State of West Virginia v. Chaz A. Simmons, 239 W. Va. 515

In the early morning of July 18, 2013, Simmons drove a truck into a building, killing one person and injuring another. He was taken to the hospital, arrested later at the hospital, and transported to the county sheriff’s office.
Simmons gave a written statement at the hospital (the “first” statement) and a recorded, Miranda‑waived statement at the sheriff’s office (the “second” statement) before being presented to a magistrate several hours after arrest.
Defense counsel filed a general pretrial motion to suppress “any statements,” but at the suppression hearing and at trial only challenged the second statement; the first statement was admitted at trial without objection and cross‑examined thereafter.
At trial Simmons was convicted on two DUI counts (DUI resulting in death; DUI resulting in injury) and sentenced; he appealed asserting (1) the circuit court had a mandatory, sua sponte duty to hold an out‑of‑jury voluntariness hearing on the first statement, and (2) the second statement should have been suppressed under the prompt‑presentment rule.
The Supreme Court of Appeals (Walker, J.) affirmed: it held Simmons waived the voluntariness‑hearing claim under Rule 12, Fortner’s mandatory‑hearing rule was superseded by Rule 12, and the record did not show the delay before magistrate presentment was primarily to obtain a confession.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Simmons)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court had a mandatory, sua sponte duty to hold an out‑of‑jury voluntariness hearing on the hospital (first) statement	Fortner requires trial court to conduct voluntariness hearing sua sponte; admission without such hearing is reversible error	Rule 12 requires defendant to raise suppression pretrial; no contemporaneous objection was made; no Fortner entitlement under current rules	Waived under Rule 12; Fortner’s mandatory‑hearing rule is superseded by Rule 12 and of no force; no sua sponte duty to hold the hearing
Whether the second (recorded) statement should be suppressed under the prompt‑presentment rule because officers delayed presentment to obtain a confession	Delay between arrest and magistrate presentment was used primarily to obtain a confession (sober him up and interview), violating WV Code §62‑1‑5 and Rule 5(a)	Delay was attributable to transport, booking, search‑warrant preparation, and normal processing; interview was of a willing, coherent suspect; no coercive conduct	No violation: excluded activities (transport, booking, warrant work) consumed critical time; record lacks evidence delay’s primary purpose was to coerce confession; admission proper

State v. Fortner, 150 W. Va. 571 (1966) (historically held trial court must sua sponte determine voluntariness of confessions before admitting them)
State v. Strock, 201 W. Va. 190 (1997) (failure to move to suppress statements prior to trial waives objection under Rule 12)
State v. Persinger, 169 W. Va. 121 (1982) (delay may be critical where primary purpose of delay was to obtain a confession)
State v. Humphrey, 177 W. Va. 264 (1986) (prompt presentment rule triggered at arrest; ordinarily post‑confession presentment delay does not vitiate confession)
State v. Wickline, 184 W. Va. 12 (1990) (most critical period for prompt presentment is between arrest and obtaining a confession)
State v. Wallace, 205 W. Va. 155 (1999) (West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure supersede conflicting common‑law procedural rules)