State of West Virginia v. Brian Daniel Hayslett, 15-0933

Victim Rhonda McCoy was fatally stabbed 23 times between midnight and 3:00 a.m.; cause of death showed a prolonged, violent attack. Defendant Brian Hayslett was arrested the next morning after a blood trail led from the crime scene to a trailer he shared with his girlfriend. He confessed on scene to stabbing the victim and gave detailed statements to police.
Hayslett admitted killing the victim but testified at trial that he had no memory of the relevant period due to heavy intoxication from Xanax and alcohol; defense theory was that intoxication negated the deliberation/premeditation necessary for first‑degree murder and at most supported second‑degree murder.
Witnesses (girlfriend and mother) described Hayslett as intoxicated, with some testimony that he was ‘‘fairly’’ or ‘‘very’’ intoxicated and acting bizarrely; other witnesses and officers testified he did not appear impaired when interviewed the morning after.
Physical and circumstantial evidence showed purposeful action: he obtained a knife, ran ~176 yards to the victim’s trailer, stabbed the victim multiple times, and returned home minutes later and confessed to family.
At trial the defense requested a voluntary intoxication jury instruction; the court refused, finding the evidence insufficient to show the required level of gross or extreme intoxication to negate deliberation. The jury convicted Hayslett of first‑degree murder without mercy; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hayslett)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in refusing a voluntary intoxication instruction reducing first‑degree murder to second‑degree if intoxication negated premeditation	Evidence did not show gross/extreme intoxication; defendant acted deliberately (obtained knife, ran to trailer, stabbed repeatedly) and gave coherent, detailed confessions	Hayslett claimed extreme intoxication from Xanax and alcohol that rendered him incapable of deliberation/premeditation, warranting instruction	Court: No abuse of discretion in refusing instruction; evidence did not support gross intoxication and facts (planning, purposeful acts, detailed confessions) contradicted memory‑loss claim; conviction affirmed
(Raised in dissent) Whether excluding lay‑opinion testimony from girlfriend and mother about Hayslett’s mental state was plain error	N/A (issue not appealed by State)	Mother and girlfriend sought to testify they observed hallucinations, delusions, extreme intoxication — relevant to intoxication defense	Majority did not address; dissent argued exclusion was error and, under plain error doctrine, warranted reversal for a new trial

State v. Keeton, 166 W.Va. 77, 272 S.E.2d 817 (1980) (voluntary intoxication may reduce first‑degree murder to second‑degree if intoxication prevents premeditation and did not antedate the intent)
State v. Skidmore, 228 W.Va. 166, 718 S.E.2d 516 (2011) (defense requires showing of gross or extreme intoxication to negate deliberation)
State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994) (standards for reversal based on refusal to give a requested instruction)
State v. Davis, 52 W.Va. 224, 43 S.E. 99 (1902) (intoxication sufficient to destroy deliberation reduces first‑degree to second‑degree murder)
State v. Bragg, 140 W.Va. 585, 87 S.E.2d 689 (1955) (intoxication defense available where defendant did not intentionally become intoxicated to prepare for the crime and intoxication prevented premeditation)