State of West Virginia v. Ryan Christopher Bowen, 16-0431

On August 17, 2015, police found 124 steel railroad tie plates in the bed of a pickup truck registered to Ryan Bowen; Norfolk Southern valued them at $20–$30 each. Bowen was arrested and gave a recorded statement admitting he took the plates and intended to sell them; he later (off-camera) claimed a housemate, John Tincher, gave him permission.
Bowen was indicted for grand larceny (WV Code § 61-3-13(a)); at trial the State played the recorded statement and a Norfolk Southern supervisor testified the plates were not authorized for removal.
Defense theory was mistake of fact: Bowen claimed he believed the plates were abandoned or that Tincher authorized their removal; Bowen did not testify and called no witnesses.
The court instructed the jury on grand and petit larceny and gave the defense-requested mistake-of-fact instruction. Over defense objection, the court added one sentence at the prosecutor’s request: “However, a defendant’s mistaken belief of the law is not a defense to the crime committed.”
The jury convicted Bowen of grand larceny; he was sentenced to the statutory term, suspended, and ordered to serve six months to two years at a youth facility. Bowen appealed, arguing the added “mistake of law” sentence violated his due process rights by undermining the intent element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adding the sentence “a defendant’s mistaken belief of the law is not a defense” to a mistake-of-fact instruction violated defendant’s due process by negating the intent element	The State argued the sentence correctly stated law and was permissible; the instructions as a whole accurately charged the jury	Bowen argued the added sentence could have misled the jury into believing any mistake (including fact) was irrelevant and thus removed the required intent element	Court affirmed: the instructions read as a whole properly required intent; the sentence was extraneous but harmless because defense insisted on a mistake-of-fact theory and no mistake-of-law claim or evidence was presented

State v. Hinkle, 200 W.Va. 280, 489 S.E.2d 257 (W.Va. 1997) (standard of review: jury instruction legal questions reviewed de novo)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (W.Va. 1995) (jury instructions must be considered as a whole; appellate review looks to whether charge fairly advised jurors)
State v. Bradshaw, 193 W.Va. 519, 457 S.E.2d 456 (W.Va. 1995) (deference to trial court’s discretion in wording jury charges)
State v. Kelly, 175 W.Va. 804, 338 S.E.2d 405 (W.Va. 1985) (animus furandi/intent to deprive is essential element of larceny)
State v. McCoy, 63 W.Va. 69, 59 S.E. 758 (W.Va. 1907) (defining intent element in larceny)
State v. Louk, 169 W.Va. 24, 285 S.E.2d 432 (W.Va. 1981) (larceny requires taking with intent to permanently deprive)
State v. Jenkins, 191 W.Va. 87, 443 S.E.2d 244 (W.Va. 1994) (overruling on other grounds noted; cited for context on larceny elements)