State of West Virginia v. Ryan L. Henson State of West Virginia v. Kerr S. Reigh State of West Virginia v. Jonathan W. Physioc, 239 W. Va. 898

Background

Three defendants (Henson, Reigh, Physioc) were tried together for a May 2015 home invasion in which three residents were beaten and property from the homeowner Robert Basore’s bedroom (wallet, coins, rifle) was taken.
Key witness Totianna Etheridge (plea agreement) testified about pre- and post-crime statements by the defendants and that she saw stolen coins in Reigh’s purse and Physioc showing coins.
No direct eyewitness identification or forensic evidence tied the defendants to the scene; victims were masked and items taken were owned by the homeowner.
Jury convicted each defendant of burglary, three counts of first-degree robbery, three counts of assault during commission of a felony, and conspiracy; substantial sentences followed.
On appeal the principal issue was whether multiple robbery convictions violated double jeopardy because the property taken belonged to one victim; additional claims raised admissibility of Etheridge’s statements, confrontation clause, sufficiency of the evidence, and failure to preserve a rifle scope.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy: May defendants be convicted of three first‑degree robberies for one home invasion where only the homeowner’s property was taken?	State: Multiple robbery counts proper because property was taken "from the presence of three distinct residents" of the dwelling.	Defendants: Double jeopardy barred multiple robbery convictions because the property belonged to a single victim (the homeowner).	Reversed in part: Court holds only one robbery conviction applicable; two robbery convictions per defendant vacated and cases remanded for resentencing.
Admissibility of Etheridge’s testimony as co‑conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)	State: Etheridge’s testimony recounting defendants’ post‑crime statements was made in furtherance of the conspiracy (efforts to flee/conceal) and thus admissible.	Physioc & Reigh: Statements were post‑crime and not in furtherance; admission violated hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause.	Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion; statements were admissible under Helmick and non‑testimonial, so no Confrontation Clause violation.
Sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions	State: Circumstantial and testimonial evidence (Etheridge’s testimony, presence of coins, victims’ accounts, post‑crime statements) sufficient.	Defendants: No eyewitness ID, no forensic link, heavy reliance on an impeached cooperating witness insufficient.	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence was sufficient.
Failure to preserve rifle scope / jury instruction on missing evidence (Osakalumi)	Defendants Henson & Physioc: Scope should have been preserved for DNA/fingerprint testing; missing evidence warranted adverse‑inference instruction.	State: Scope was damaged, fumed for prints, had no evidentiary value, no bad faith; instruction unwarranted.	Affirmed: Trial court did not err; no bad faith, little probative value, and other evidence sufficient—refusal to give adverse‑inference instruction proper.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Collins, 174 W. Va. 767, 329 S.E.2d 839 (W. Va. 1984) (unit‑of‑prosecution analysis: attempted robbery of a single store cannot support multiple convictions per clerk)
State v. Myers, 229 W. Va. 238, 728 S.E.2d 122 (W. Va. 2012) (upheld multiple robbery convictions where evidence showed separate takings from distinct individuals)
State v. Osakalumi, 194 W. Va. 758, 461 S.E.2d 504 (W. Va. 1995) (framework for lost/destroyed evidence and appropriate remedies)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (W. Va. 1995) (standards for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Helmick, 201 W. Va. 163, 495 S.E.2d 262 (W. Va. 1997) (co‑conspirator statement admissible if made while conspirators still concerned with concealment/identity)
State v. Mechling, 219 W. Va. 366, 633 S.E.2d 311 (W. Va. 2006) (definition and limits of testimonial statements under Confrontation Clause)