State of West Virginia v. Fritts, 20-0937

Background

Petitioner Sherri Ann Fritts was indicted for delivery of a controlled substance resulting in the death of Angelina Costello and for failure to render aid; she was convicted by a jury and sentenced to consecutive terms.
Decedent Costello was found dead in her bed; toxicology detected fentanyl in subclavian blood at a level the medical examiner testified was multiple times lethal; examiner observed physical signs consistent with overdose.
Evidence included Google location-history data (obtained via warrant), surveillance video placing petitioner at a service station, and testimony about petitioner using Costello’s car the day before the death.
The State sought to admit testimony from Sergeant Steven Holz to map and interpret raw Google location data and to call Richard Brooks to testify about petitioner’s prior contacts at Brooks’s home with a drug dealer known as “Cuz.”
The circuit court qualified Sgt. Holz to interpret and map the data under Rule 702 (limited to mapping/interpretation), admitted Brooks’s testimony as intrinsic evidence (with limits on opening statements), denied Fritts’s motions for acquittal and new trial, and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Fritts's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (delivery causing death; failure to render aid)	Circumstantial proof (location data, video, med‑exam findings, toxicology) permits inference Fritts obtained and delivered fentanyl that caused death	Evidence insufficient: State did not prove date/manner of death or directly link Fritts to administration; decedent had prescriptions	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; motions denied
Qualification/admissibility of Sgt. Holz (GPS/cell‑location mapping)	Holz had training and experience to interpret raw Google location points and convert them into maps to assist the jury; not testifying to underlying science	Holz lacked specialized education/credentials in cell‑tracking/GPS science; reliability challenged	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion under Rule 702; testimony limited to mapping/interpretation and was corroborated by video
Admission of Richard Brooks’s testimony about petitioner’s prior drug contacts (Rule 404(b)/Rule 403)	Brooks’s testimony was intrinsic/background showing opportunity for petitioner to obtain drugs and was relevant; probative value outweighed prejudice	Testimony was prior‑bad‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b), prejudicial, and the State failed to disclose; inference of purchase on decedent date improper	Affirmed: evidence deemed intrinsic and relevant; court limited improper inference in opening and did not clearly abuse its Rule 403 discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vance, 207 W. Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000) (standard of review for circuit‑court rulings and factual findings)
State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996) (view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W. Va. 512, 466 S.E.2d 171 (1995) (Rule 702: qualifying experts by education or experience)
Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (1993) (Daubert‑style reliability factors for expert scientific testimony)
In re Flood Litig. Coal River Watershed, 222 W. Va. 574, 668 S.E.2d 203 (2008) (Rule 702 admissibility framework and relevance/reliability inquiry)
State v. Harris, 230 W. Va. 717, 742 S.E.2d 133 (2013) (distinguishing intrinsic vs. extrinsic evidence under Rule 404(b))
State v. Derr, 192 W. Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994) (trial court discretion in Rule 403 balancing)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal standard for admissibility of scientific expert testimony)