State of West Virginia v. Jeremy Allen Marcum, 16-0873

Jeremy Allen Marcum admitted in a videotaped police statement (in a cruiser) that he stabbed James “Red” Bundy to death and stabbed/beat Myrtle Bundy; he was indicted for first-degree murder, malicious wounding, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery.
Marcum moved to suppress the videotaped confession, arguing extreme intoxication rendered any waiver involuntary; the circuit court denied suppression after hearing testimony and observing the video.
The court and parties agreed to redact portions of the tape; Marcum sought to exclude one contested response — “Hell yeah” — he gave when asked if he would do it again; the court admitted that response as relevant to remorse and intent.
Two co-defendants were subpoenaed but intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment; the court required their physical presence and limited each party to ten questions per witness to avoid a fishing expedition.
At trial Marcum testified and admitted the stabbings but asserted provocation and that co-defendants had encouraged him; the jury convicted him on all counts and sentenced him to life without parole for first-degree murder.
Marcum’s post-verdict motions for a new trial and judgment of acquittal were denied; he appealed and the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Marcum)	Held
Admissibility of videotaped confession	Statement was voluntary and corroborative; admissible	Marcum was so intoxicated his waiver was not knowing/voluntary	Court upheld admission; factual findings (walked steadily, eloquent) not clearly erroneous and voluntariness reviewed de novo and satisfied
Admission of “Hell yeah” response	Probative of malice, premeditation, lack of remorse; outweighed prejudice	Irrelevant to mens rea and unduly prejudicial	Court found relevance to intent/remorse and probative value outweighed prejudice; admission proper under Rules 401/403
Limiting cross‑examination of co‑defendants (ten questions)	Court complied with Herbert by producing witnesses to invoke Fifth; limitation prevented improper argument by questioning without answers	Limitation infringed defendant’s right to subpoena and present testimony; broad questioning allowed	Court held it substantially complied with Herbert; Marcum waived any objection by failing to timely object; limitation not an abuse of discretion
Cumulative error/new trial	—	Rulings were outcome-determinative and deprived him of a fair trial	Court found no individual errors meriting reversal, held Marcum failed to preserve/cite record for cumulative-error claim; affirmed

State v. Vance, 207 W. Va. 640 (2000) (standard of review for circuit court findings and rulings)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657 (1995) (sufficiency review; evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Hall, 174 W. Va. 599 (1985) (intoxication may affect voluntariness but must be extreme to render confession inadmissible)
State v. Farley, 192 W. Va. 247 (1994) (court must independently review voluntariness of confessions as a legal question)
State v. Derr, 192 W. Va. 165 (1994) (Rules 401–403 balancing and broad trial-court discretion)
State v. Herbert, 234 W. Va. 576 (2014) (non-party witness invoking Fifth must do so in jury’s presence)
State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294 (1996) (preservation and waiver principles for appellate review)
State v. Smith, 156 W. Va. 385 (1972) (cumulative-error doctrine requiring reversal when multiple errors deny a fair trial)