State v. Haid, 721 S.E.2d 529

Haid convicted by jury on two counts of sexual assault in the third degree; sentences one to five years on each count, concurrent, plus 10-year sexual offender registry and $5,000 fine.
Indictment charged six counts: counts 1-3 second degree; counts 4-6 third degree; victim was 15 years old at time of offenses.
Evidence showed Haid and the 15-year-old victim met via Yahoo! chat, then met in person on Feb 20, 2007; alleged acts occurred at Haid’s home with no forensic evidence obtained.
Defense sought to question the victim about prior sexual conduct, including anal intercourse; the court denied; the ruling was later affirmed on appeal.
Trial included a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a claim of inconsistent verdicts, and issues regarding jury instructions on credibility and uncorroborated testimony; the court upheld the conviction and allowed the existing jury charge.
The majority held that the rape shield exclusion was properly applied, the evidence was sufficient to support the two third-degree convictions, and the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, properly conveyed the law; an alternative instruction on credibility was noted as a potentially better formulation in future cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of questioning victim’s prior sexual conduct	Haid argues inquiry into prior anal intercourse is relevant to credibility	State argues it is a fishing expedition and barred by rape shield	Rape shield ruling affirmed; no reversible error
Sufficiency of evidence for acquittal motions	Haid contends evidence insufficient and verdicts inconsistent	State argues evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution supports guilt	Evidence sufficient to sustain two third-degree convictions; motions denied
Jury instruction on uncorroborated testimony and credibility	Haid seeks added language directing no need to find inherently incredible to convict	Charge adequate as a whole; additional language duplicative	Instructions, viewed in context of entire charge, were adequate; alternative better wording noted for future cases
Consistency of verdicts	Inconsistency between acquittals and convictions suggests error	Jury’s credibility determinations can yield mixed verdicts	No reversible error; verdicts affirmable given credibility determinations and sufficiency of evidence

State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 (1995) (sufficiency/credibility standard for reviewing evidence; clarifies inherent incredibility standard)
State v. Beck, 167 W.Va. 830 (1981) (un corroborated victim testimony may sustain conviction unless inherently incredible; jury credibility factors)
State v. Barker, 178 W.Va. 736 (1987) (absence of corroborating physical evidence in child sexual assault case; corroboration not required if not inherently incredible)
State v. McPherson, 179 W.Va. 612 (1988) (application of Beck; review of jury instructions on credibility in uncorroborated cases)