McGinnis hearing in West Virginia

2018II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 1 Prior to trial, pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State filed a notice of its intent to introduce evidence from the victim’s mother of petitioner’s insertion of various objects into her orifices for his sexual gratification.2 The State argued that the “fetish or type of sexual preferences enjoyed by the [petitioner] is extremely relevant evidence in light of the allegations made by D.S. in t

2018II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 1 Prior to trial, pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State filed a notice of its intent to introduce evidence from the victim’s mother of petitioner’s insertion of various objects into her orifices for his sexual gratification.2 The State argued that the “fetish or type of sexual preferences enjoyed by the [petitioner] is extremely relevant evidence in light of the allegations made by D.S. in t

2014Judge Groh then made detailed and lengthy findings and conclusions that included (1) whether a piece of evidence was relevant, (2) the purpose for which the piece of evidence could be considered by the jury, and (3) whether the probative value of that piece of evidence was outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to petitioner. 8 State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 , 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996), provides as follows: In determining whether the admissibility of evidence of “other bad acts” is governed by Rule 404(b), we first must determine if the evidence is “intrinsic” or “extrinsic.” See United Stat

2014Judge Groh then made detailed and lengthy findings and conclusions that included (1) whether a piece of evidence was relevant, (2) the purpose for which the piece of evidence could be considered by the jury, and (3) whether the probative value of that piece of evidence was outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to petitioner. 8 State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 , 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996), provides as follows: In determining whether the admissibility of evidence of “other bad acts” is governed by Rule 404(b), we first must determine if the evidence is “intrinsic” or “extrinsic.” See United Stat

2022Moreover, in the order denying petitioner’s post-trial motions, the circuit court found that the evidence petitioner sold marijuana to M.S. was intrinsic “[a]s the charges contained allegations of sexual assault of an inebriated 14 victim, [petitioner] providing marijuana is intrinsic and therefore not subject [to] analysis under Rule 404(b).” “[E]vidence which is ‘intrinsic’ to the indicted charge is not governed by Rule 404(b).” State v. Harris, 230 W.

2022Moreover, in the order denying petitioner’s post-trial motions, the circuit court found that the evidence petitioner sold marijuana to M.S. was intrinsic “[a]s the charges contained allegations of sexual assault of an inebriated 14 victim, [petitioner] providing marijuana is intrinsic and therefore not subject [to] analysis under Rule 404(b).” “[E]vidence which is ‘intrinsic’ to the indicted charge is not governed by Rule 404(b).” State v. Harris, 230 W.

2020Therefore, we find that petitioner is entitled to no relief in this regard. 13 jury might cumulate the evidence and assume the defendant to be a bad person, noting: “Generally, this type of alleged prejudice is rarely sufficient to grant relief against joinder [under West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a)].” Id. (citing State v. Milburn, 204 W.

2020Therefore, we find that petitioner is entitled to no relief in this regard. 13 jury might cumulate the evidence and assume the defendant to be a bad person, noting: “Generally, this type of alleged prejudice is rarely sufficient to grant relief against joinder [under West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a)].” Id. (citing State v. Milburn, 204 W.

2018Petitioner, consequently, contends that trial counsel’s failure in this regard “was fully sufficient to cause [him] to be denied a new trial on direct appeal.” In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): (1) Counsel’s performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been differ

2018Petitioner, consequently, contends that trial counsel’s failure in this regard “was fully sufficient to cause [him] to be denied a new trial on direct appeal.” In the West Virginia courts, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): (1) Counsel’s performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been differ

2018II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 1 Prior to trial, pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State filed a notice of its intent to introduce evidence from the victim’s mother of petitioner’s insertion of various objects into her orifices for his sexual gratification.2 The State argued that the “fetish or type of sexual preferences enjoyed by the [petitioner] is extremely relevant evidence in light of the allegations made by D.S. in t

2018II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 1 Prior to trial, pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State filed a notice of its intent to introduce evidence from the victim’s mother of petitioner’s insertion of various objects into her orifices for his sexual gratification.2 The State argued that the “fetish or type of sexual preferences enjoyed by the [petitioner] is extremely relevant evidence in light of the allegations made by D.S. in t

2018II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 1 Prior to trial, pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State filed a notice of its intent to introduce evidence from the victim’s mother of petitioner’s insertion of various objects into her orifices for his sexual gratification.2 The State argued that the “fetish or type of sexual preferences enjoyed by the [petitioner] is extremely relevant evidence in light of the allegations made by D.S. in t

2018II, 230 W.Va. 731 , 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324 , 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 1 Prior to trial, pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State filed a notice of its intent to introduce evidence from the victim’s mother of petitioner’s insertion of various objects into her orifices for his sexual gratification.2 The State argued that the “fetish or type of sexual preferences enjoyed by the [petitioner] is extremely relevant evidence in light of the allegations made by D.S. in t

2018We found that the court failed to hold a proper McGinnis hearing, but we also found the error to be harmless because, among other reasons, the evidence “was introduced without objection through two other witnesses[.]” Id. at 22 , 754 S.E.2d at 598 .

2018We found that the court failed to hold a proper McGinnis hearing, but we also found the error to be harmless because, among other reasons, the evidence “was introduced without objection through two other witnesses[.]” Id. at 22 , 754 S.E.2d at 598 .

2016See Rash, 226 W.Va. at 42-43 , 697 S.E.2d at 77-78 ; Harris, 226 W.Va. at 478 , 702 S.E.2d at 610 .

2016See Rash, 226 W.Va. at 42-43 , 697 S.E.2d at 77-78 ; Harris, 226 W.Va. at 478 , 702 S.E.2d at 610 .

2016McMannis v. Mohn, [163] W.Va. [129], 254 S.E.2d 805 (1979): “A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error in that ordinary trial error not involving constitutional violations will not be reviewed.” 2 State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147 , 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994). 3 Neither a copy of the State’s Rule 404(b) motion nor the transcript of the McGinnis hearing were included in the appendix record on appeal. 4 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987). 5 Petitioner has not filed a direct appeal of his conviction. 2 E

2016McMannis v. Mohn, [163] W.Va. [129], 254 S.E.2d 805 (1979): “A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error in that ordinary trial error not involving constitutional violations will not be reviewed.” 2 State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147 , 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994). 3 Neither a copy of the State’s Rule 404(b) motion nor the transcript of the McGinnis hearing were included in the appendix record on appeal. 4 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987). 5 Petitioner has not filed a direct appeal of his conviction. 2 E

2016Thus, the only 404(b) evidence addressed by petitioner—the 2008 stabbing of Travis Farris—was the subject of a McGinnis hearing and deemed admissible at trial. 6 In syllabus points one and three of State v. Guthrie, 194 W.

2016Thus, the only 404(b) evidence addressed by petitioner—the 2008 stabbing of Travis Farris—was the subject of a McGinnis hearing and deemed admissible at trial. 6 In syllabus points one and three of State v. Guthrie, 194 W.

2016McMannis v. Mohn, [163] W.Va. [129], 254 S.E.2d 805 (1979): “A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error in that ordinary trial error not involving constitutional violations will not be reviewed.” 2 State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147 , 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994). 3 Neither a copy of the State’s Rule 404(b) motion nor the transcript of the McGinnis hearing were included in the appendix record on appeal. 4 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987). 5 Petitioner has not filed a direct appeal of his conviction. 2 E

2016McMannis v. Mohn, [163] W.Va. [129], 254 S.E.2d 805 (1979): “A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error in that ordinary trial error not involving constitutional violations will not be reviewed.” 2 State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147 , 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994). 3 Neither a copy of the State’s Rule 404(b) motion nor the transcript of the McGinnis hearing were included in the appendix record on appeal. 4 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987). 5 Petitioner has not filed a direct appeal of his conviction. 2 E

2016McMannis v. Mohn, [163] W.Va. [129], 254 S.E.2d 805 (1979): “A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error in that ordinary trial error not involving constitutional violations will not be reviewed.” 2 State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147 , 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994). 3 Neither a copy of the State’s Rule 404(b) motion nor the transcript of the McGinnis hearing were included in the appendix record on appeal. 4 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987). 5 Petitioner has not filed a direct appeal of his conviction. 2 E

2016McMannis v. Mohn, [163] W.Va. [129], 254 S.E.2d 805 (1979): “A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for a writ of error in that ordinary trial error not involving constitutional violations will not be reviewed.” 2 State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147 , 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994). 3 Neither a copy of the State’s Rule 404(b) motion nor the transcript of the McGinnis hearing were included in the appendix record on appeal. 4 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and Kennedy v. Frazier, 178 W.Va. 10 , 357 S.E.2d 43 (1987). 5 Petitioner has not filed a direct appeal of his conviction. 2 E

2014On this 7 In State v. Cyrus, 222 W.Va. 214 , 664 S.E.2d 99 (2008), we held (1) that evidence showing the defendant had sexually assaulted and abused victims in another county was inextricably intertwined with the sexual offenses charged in the current case; and (2) such intrinsic evidence is not governed by Rule of Evidence 404(b). 5 record, we do not find that the State’s Notice was legally insufficient or defective, or that petitioner was prejudiced by the State’s Notice.

2014On this 7 In State v. Cyrus, 222 W.Va. 214 , 664 S.E.2d 99 (2008), we held (1) that evidence showing the defendant had sexually assaulted and abused victims in another county was inextricably intertwined with the sexual offenses charged in the current case; and (2) such intrinsic evidence is not governed by Rule of Evidence 404(b). 5 record, we do not find that the State’s Notice was legally insufficient or defective, or that petitioner was prejudiced by the State’s Notice.

2012In Stafford v. Rocky Hollow Coal Co., 198 W.Va. 593 , 482 S.E.2d 210 (1996), the Court reversed the circuit court for failing to conduct the proper McGinnis analysis.

2012In Stafford v. Rocky Hollow Coal Co., 198 W.Va. 593 , 482 S.E.2d 210 (1996), the Court reversed the circuit court for failing to conduct the proper McGinnis analysis.

2010Id.

2010Id.