State of West Virginia v. Henry B. Harris
230 W. Va. 717
| W. Va. | 2013Background
- Harris was indicted on seven counts of criminal sexual conduct; circuit court severed counts for each victim.
- Counts One and Two involve victim M.R.W., aged 4–6 at the time; incidents alleged in 1982–1984; Harris aged 40s.
- Motion in limine to exclude unrelated sexual conduct evidence was granted prior to trial.
- B.J.B. and C.S.V., sisters of the victim, testified Harris frequently stayed in Hancock County at relatives’ homes.
- M.R.W. testified to two specific acts in two residences; threats were made to prevent disclosure.
- Prosecutor questioned frequency of assaults (ten to a dozen) with no defense objection; verdicts of guilt on both counts; consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b) | Evidence is intrinsic, not Rule 404(b) extrinsic. | Evidence is improper Rule 404(b) prejudicial other acts. | Evidence intrinsic; not governed by Rule 404(b); admissible. |
| Need for McGinnis hearing and limiting instruction | No separate hearing or limiting instruction required for intrinsic evidence. | Should have an in-camera hearing and limiting instruction if 404(b) applies. | No McGinnis hearing needed; evidence intrinsic; no error requiring instruction. |
| Plain error preservation given no objection | Plain error standards apply to unpreserved errors. | Errors should be reviewed under plain error only for substantial rights. | Record supports no error under plain error; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996) (intrinsic vs extrinsic evidence; 404(b) limits do not apply to intrinsic evidence)
- State v. Huffman, 141 W. Va. 55, 87 S.E.2d 541 (1955) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W. Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Kitchen v. Painter, 226 W. Va. 278, 700 S.E.2d 489 (2010) (distinguishes res gestae from Rule 404(b))
- State v. Cyrus, 222 W. Va. 214, 664 S.E.2d 99 (2008) (intrinsic evidence not governed by 404(b))
- State v. Woodson, 222 W. Va. 607, 671 S.E.2d 438 (2008) (intrinsic evidence related to charged acts)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (jurors' expectations and need for context; evidentiary depth)
- United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83 (4th Cir. 1980) (res gestae/context for the charged crime)
- Covington v. State, 703 P.2d 436 (Alaska App. 1985) (prior similar conduct admissible to explain relationship and context)
- Brown v. Covington, 780 P.2d 880 (Wash. App. 1989) (child victims' testimony difficult to pinpoint specific incidents)