836 S.E.2d 466
W. Va.2019Background
- Daniel Scruggs was indicted for kidnapping under W. Va. Code § 61-2-14a; the circuit court certified questions about who must decide certain sentencing-related facts and whether special interrogatories may be used.
- The contested statutory provisions, § 61-2-14a(b)(3) and (4), reduce a default life-without-parole sentence to tiered terms (20–50 years with ransom/concession; 10–30 years without).
- The circuit court initially concluded a jury must select the applicable sentencing tier; the State and Scruggs agreed the trial judge should make those factual findings.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reformulated the certified questions to ask (1) whether the judge (not the jury) determines the § 61-2-14a(b)(3)–(4) facts and (2) whether submitting special interrogatories to the jury (absent statute) is an abuse.
- The Court analyzed prior state precedent (notably State v. Haught) and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Blakely and Alleyne) on whether judicial fact-finding that alters mandatory minima/maxima is constitutional.
- Holding: the Court answered both reformulated questions — the judge decides the § 61-2-14a(b)(3)–(4) facts, and submitting special interrogatories in such cases (absent statute) is an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Scruggs' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge or jury must decide facts in § 61-2-14a(b)(3)–(4) that reduce life-without-parole to a term of years | Judge may make findings; statute authorizes judicial reductions | Jury must decide tier-determining facts | Judge decides those factual matters (affirmative) |
| Whether trial court may submit special interrogatories to jury in kidnapping cases absent statute | Special interrogatories unnecessary and improper; judge should find facts | (Agreed) special interrogatories should not be used | Submitting special interrogatories without statutory/constitutional authorization is an abuse (prohibited) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haught, 218 W.Va. 462, 624 S.E.2d 899 (W. Va. 2005) (construed § 61-2-14a as allowing judicial findings to reduce rather than enhance sentence)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements for the jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (judicial fact-finding that increases sentence beyond jury verdict implicates Sixth Amendment)
- State v. Dilliner, 212 W.Va. 135, 569 S.E.2d 211 (W. Va. 2002) (submission of special interrogatories to a jury in criminal cases when not authorized by statute is reversible error)
- Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (W. Va. 1993) (court may reformulate certified questions)
- State v. Boggs, 87 W.Va. 738, 106 S.E. 47 (W. Va. 1921) (historical rule against special verdicts/interrogatories in criminal trials)
- State v. Greater Huntington Theatre Corp., 133 W.Va. 252, 55 S.E.2d 681 (W. Va. 1949) (statutes authorizing special interrogatories do not apply to criminal cases)