State of West Virginia v. Michael L. Blickenstaff, 239 W. Va. 627

On Aug. 25, 2014, Michael Blickenstaff allegedly displayed a knife, forced his ex‑girlfriend Nicole M. and her child to ride with him for five hours across MD, WV, and VA, threatened and physically assaulted Nicole M., and was later charged with kidnapping in West Virginia (after a Maryland false‑imprisonment conviction).
Nicole M. did not physically resist during the incident; the State argued this was due to fear from prior domestic abuse.
The State presented expert testimony from Katherine Spriggs (domestic‑violence program manager) that victims often comply from fear and introduced Blickenstaff’s prior conviction for second‑degree domestic assault against Nicole M. under Rule 404(b).
Blickenstaff moved pretrial to exclude the expert (arguing irrelevance and prejudice without specific grounds) and objected to admission of the prior conviction; the trial court overruled both; Blickenstaff did not object to the expert at trial.
Blickenstaff was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to life without parole; on appeal he argued (1) the expert’s testimony was improper (lethality index comment and bolstering of victim credibility) and (2) admission of his prior conviction was unduly prejudicial.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, finding the expert‑testimony objection waived for lack of timely/specific objection and no abuse of discretion in admitting the prior conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blickenstaff)	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony about domestic‑violence dynamics	Expert testimony is relevant to explain why victims may not resist; permissible background/context for victim’s state of mind	Testimony (including lethality index reference) was improper and bolstered victim’s credibility	Waived: defendant failed to make a timely, specific objection at trial; appellate review denied
Admissibility of defendant’s prior domestic‑assault conviction under Rule 404(b)	Prior conviction was offered for proper purpose (prove lack of consent/fear), relevant, and a limiting instruction was given	Admission was unduly prejudicial and unnecessary given other evidence of threats/violence during the incident	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion—proper purpose, relevance, on‑the‑record Rule 403 balancing, and limiting instruction satisfied

State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 (1996) (standards for admission of evidence and Rule 403 balancing)
Perrine v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 225 W.Va. 482 (2010) (objections must be timely and state specific grounds)
State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208 (1996) (issues must be articulated with distinctiveness to preserve appellate review)
Yuncke v. Welker, 128 W.Va. 299 (1945) (failure to timely object waives appellate review)
State v. Rollins, 233 W.Va. 715 (2014) (prior domestic abuse can be best evidence of victim–defendant relationship and state of mind)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (existence of alternative proof does not render evidence of prior misconduct inadmissible)