State of West Virginia v. Jeri L. Galloway, 16-0933

In Sept. 2014 Jeri L. Galloway contracted with Middlebourne United Methodist Church; the church gave him a $10,000 down payment to perform repairs, but Galloway never ordered materials or began work and became unreachable.
The State charged Galloway with obtaining money by false pretenses; at trial the jury convicted him and the circuit court sentenced him to 1–10 years and ordered $10,000 restitution.
Before trial the State timely gave notice it would introduce Rule 404(b) evidence of a prior act: Mark Powell testified he paid Galloway $1,940 as a down payment for a retaining wall that Galloway never began and for which he became unresponsive.
The circuit court held a pretrial hearing, found the Powell incident occurred, and admitted the testimony under Rule 404(b) for motive, intent, and common scheme/plan; the court also gave a limiting instruction to the jury.
On appeal Galloway argued the admission of the Powell evidence violated Rule 404(b) as unfairly prejudicial or merely character evidence; the State defended admissibility as showing intent, absence of mistake, and common plan.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, applying the three-step 404(b) framework and finding the prior-act evidence occurred, served a legitimate purpose, and was more probative than prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-act (404(b)) evidence	State: Powell act shows motive, intent, absence of mistake, and common scheme/plan similar to church offense	Galloway: The Powell act was at most a contract breach, not a wrongful act, and admission improperly urged character conformity	Admitted: court found the act occurred, was admissible for legitimate purposes, and more probative than prejudicial; limiting instruction given
Sufficiency of evidence that the other act occurred	State: ample testimony from Powell established occurrence	Galloway: does not dispute occurrence but disputes wrongful character of the act	No error: occurrence established; petitioner did not contest that the act happened
Whether admission invaded impermissible character evidence	State: evidence proved intent/absence of mistake, not general bad character	Galloway: evidence only served to label him a thief and show conformity with bad character	Rejected: court concluded relevance to intent and absence of mistake outweighed any prejudice
Rule 403 balancing (probative vs. prejudicial)	State: prior act probative to rebut mistake theory and show common scheme	Galloway: prejudice outweighed probative value	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice

State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W.Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (W. Va. 1998) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Timothy C., 237 W.Va. 435, 787 S.E.2d 888 (W. Va. 2016) (three-step review for Rule 404(b) admissions: clear-error on occurrence, de novo on legitimate purpose, abuse of discretion on Rule 403 balancing)
State v. Jonathan B., 230 W.Va. 229, 737 S.E.2d 257 (W. Va. 2012) (articulated Rule 404(b) analysis quoted in Timothy C.)
State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (W. Va. 1995) (procedures for admitting and limiting jury instruction on Rule 404(b) evidence)