State of West Virginia v. Juan X. Chic, 20-0208

Background:

Victim Andre Leonard was shot to death on August 15, 2018; petitioner Juan Xavier Chic was indicted for first-degree murder, use/presentation of a firearm during a felony, and being a prohibited person in possession of a concealed firearm.
Eyewitness Breanna Hall initially denied knowing the shooter, was arrested (obstruction/possession), then after release gave a third statement implicating Chic; she testified at trial consistent with that third statement.
Torrion Betts was present at the scene; police were aware Betts owned a firearm but did not seize or test it. An iPhone seized from Hall was later returned as inaccessible.
Forensic evidence: six .40-caliber casings matched the Glock found by Leonard; four .357 Sig casings were fired from an unknown gun (not Hall’s .38 revolver); gunshot residue was found on the driver’s door of Chic’s car.
Chic moved to dismiss (and sought an adverse-inference instruction) based on alleged discovery/preservation failures under Rule 16 and State v. Osakalumi; the court denied the motions, a jury convicted Chic on all counts, and the court sentenced him to life without mercy plus concurrent terms.
On appeal Chic argued (1) discovery/spoliation errors (Betts’s gun, Hall’s iPhone), (2) insufficiency of evidence/premeditation, (3) failure to instruct on self-defense, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Chic)	Held
1) Dismissal/adverse inference for failure to disclose/preserve Betts’s gun and Hall’s iPhone	State: It never possessed Betts’s gun; iPhone was inaccessible and played no role at trial. No Rule 16 obligation or Osakalumi duty to preserve what State did not have.	Chic: State should have obtained/tested Betts’s gun and preserved Hall’s phone; Rule 16/Osakalumi require disclosure or sanctions.	Court: Affirmed—no Rule 16 duty for items not in State’s possession; Osakalumi doesn’t impose affirmative duty to obtain evidence State never had; no sanction or adverse inference warranted.
2) Sufficiency of evidence / premeditation for first-degree murder	State: Eyewitness testimony, Betts’s testimony, GSR on Chic’s car, and casings support premeditation and deliberate killing.	Chic: Physical evidence ambiguous, witness inconsistencies, no motive or planning shown; murder weapon not recovered.	Court: Affirmed—when viewed in prosecution’s favor, evidence permitted inference of premeditation and supports convictions.
3) Self-defense instruction / burden to disprove self-defense	State: No evidence Chic acted in self-defense; Chic’s defense was he was not the shooter, so no instruction was warranted.	Chic: Leonard fired a gun multiple times; jury should have been instructed on self-defense and prosecution had to disprove it.	Court: Affirmed—no evidence suggested Chic acted in self-defense; instruction would have been unsupported by the record.
4) Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: Claims are inadequately developed on the record and traditionally reserved for habeas; circuit court declined further development.	Chic: Counsel failed to seek bifurcation on mercy, failed to pursue self-defense instruction, and failed to impeach Hall.	Court: Affirmed—claims raised on direct appeal were not developed below; preserved for habeas rather than resolved on direct appeal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Osakalumi, 194 W. Va. 758 (1995) (establishes test and remedies when State had evidence but failed to preserve it)
State v. Davis, 232 W. Va. 398 (2013) (Osakalumi scope and limits; when Osakalumi applies)
State v. Carter, 232 W. Va. 97 (2013) (standard of review for motions to dismiss and evidentiary findings)
State v. Murray, 180 W. Va. 41 (1988) (Rule 16 discovery limited to State's possession, custody, or control)
State v. Youngblood, 221 W. Va. 20 (2007) (State's obligations to turn over materials in its possession under Rule 16)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657 (1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and jury credibility deference)
State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294 (1996) (resolve evidentiary conflicts and credibility questions in prosecution’s favor)
State v. Hatfield, 169 W. Va. 191 (1982) (unlawful homicide by shooting plus evidence of malice/premeditation supports first-degree murder)
State v. Kirtley, 162 W. Va. 249 (1978) (when sufficient evidence creates reasonable doubt about self-defense, prosecution must disprove self-defense)
State v. Collins, 154 W. Va. 771 (1968) (jury instructions must be supported by evidence)
State ex rel. Daniel v. Legursky, 195 W. Va. 314 (1995) (ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal may be heard if record developed)
State v. Woodson, 222 W. Va. 607 (2008) (undeveloped records make direct-appeal ineffective-assistance claims presumptively dismissible)