Caudill instruction in West Virginia

2022Va. at 710 , 753 S.E.2d at 763 . 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. at 711 , 753 S.E.2d at 764 . 16 court committed plain error by not giving the jury a Caudill instruction on its own initiative. 28 This Court held that circuit courts have no duty to give a Caudill instruction unless the defense requests the instruction. 29 We adopted the State’s reasoning that “defense counsel, faced with the difficult task of dealing with damaging testimony of an accomplice, may not want to have a Caudill instruction because such an instruction could emphasize the damaging testimony[, and] [i]n such cases the trial court

2022Va. at 710 , 753 S.E.2d at 763 . 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. at 711 , 753 S.E.2d at 764 . 16 court committed plain error by not giving the jury a Caudill instruction on its own initiative. 28 This Court held that circuit courts have no duty to give a Caudill instruction unless the defense requests the instruction. 29 We adopted the State’s reasoning that “defense counsel, faced with the difficult task of dealing with damaging testimony of an accomplice, may not want to have a Caudill instruction because such an instruction could emphasize the damaging testimony[, and] [i]n such cases the trial court

2022Va. 74 , 289 S.E.2d 748 (1982), and held that the failure to give the Caudill instruction, that an accomplice’s guilty plea cannot be considered as proof of the defendant’s guilt, is reversible error only when the instruction is requested by the defendant.

2022Va. 74 , 289 S.E.2d 748 (1982), and held that the failure to give the Caudill instruction, that an accomplice’s guilty plea cannot be considered as proof of the defendant’s guilt, is reversible error only when the instruction is requested by the defendant.

2022In January 2011, the Flack defendant traveled with three accomplices from Pulaski, Virginia to a home in Bluefield, West Virginia intending to burglarize the defendant’s uncle’s home. 24 Upon arrival at the home, the group discovered the defendant’s seventeen-year-old second cousin, Matthew Flack, and two other boys alone in the home. 25 The group then forced their way into the home and one of the defendant’s accomplices, Jasman Montgomery, killed Matthew by shooting him in the face. 26 Montgomery later pled guilty to first degree murder and testified against the Flack defendant. 27 Montgomery

2022In January 2011, the Flack defendant traveled with three accomplices from Pulaski, Virginia to a home in Bluefield, West Virginia intending to burglarize the defendant’s uncle’s home. 24 Upon arrival at the home, the group discovered the defendant’s seventeen-year-old second cousin, Matthew Flack, and two other boys alone in the home. 25 The group then forced their way into the home and one of the defendant’s accomplices, Jasman Montgomery, killed Matthew by shooting him in the face. 26 Montgomery later pled guilty to first degree murder and testified against the Flack defendant. 27 Montgomery

2017Maintaining that this theory of defense should have been pursued, Petitioner presented the following allegations of error to the habeas court below: (1) the robbery offense was a lesser-included offense to the felony murder offense predicated on burglary and, as such, double jeopardy attached when the two were merged; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for (a) failure to hire an investigator, an expert in forensic pathology, and a firearms expert and to cross-examine the State’s experts; (b) failure to object to the autopsy evidence being elicited from a different pathologist than the one w

2017Maintaining that this theory of defense should have been pursued, Petitioner presented the following allegations of error to the habeas court below: (1) the robbery offense was a lesser-included offense to the felony murder offense predicated on burglary and, as such, double jeopardy attached when the two were merged; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for (a) failure to hire an investigator, an expert in forensic pathology, and a firearms expert and to cross-examine the State’s experts; (b) failure to object to the autopsy evidence being elicited from a different pathologist than the one w

2017Maintaining that this theory of defense should have been pursued, Petitioner presented the following allegations of error to the habeas court below: (1) the robbery offense was a lesser-included offense to the felony murder offense predicated on burglary and, as such, double jeopardy attached when the two were merged; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for (a) failure to hire an investigator, an expert in forensic pathology, and a firearms expert and to cross-examine the State’s experts; (b) failure to object to the autopsy evidence being elicited from a different pathologist than the one w

2017Maintaining that this theory of defense should have been pursued, Petitioner presented the following allegations of error to the habeas court below: (1) the robbery offense was a lesser-included offense to the felony murder offense predicated on burglary and, as such, double jeopardy attached when the two were merged; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for (a) failure to hire an investigator, an expert in forensic pathology, and a firearms expert and to cross-examine the State’s experts; (b) failure to object to the autopsy evidence being elicited from a different pathologist than the one w