The rule varies according to the nature of the evidence. This Court has recognized that the sufficiency of a bill of particulars may be tested by reference to the law regarding nondisclosure of court-ordered discovery.State v. ![]() The record shows that although the appellant's motion for a bill of particulars, filed on Jand again on September 21, 1983, requested that the State turn over copies of any statements made by the appellant to any person involved in the case, the State's response, which was mailed less than two weeks before trial, made no mention of the statement the appellant allegedly made to Magistrate Mendez after his arrest. The appellant contends that the admission of Magistrate Mendez' testimony was reversible error because it was not disclosed by the State prior to trial. By order entered January 13, 1984, the appellant's motion to set aside the verdict was overruled, and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. On November 16, 1983, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. In rebuttal, Magistrate Mendez was allowed to testify that the appellant had stated that he had fired the gun at Mrs. The appellant testified that he had told Magistrate Mendez about firing the warning shot into the ground. The prosecution attempted to impeach the appellant's credibility by showing that shortly after his arrest he had made a prior inconsistent statement to Magistrate John Mendez. Collins was wounded, but denied that he had fired at his sister. The appellant testified that he had fired a warning shot into the ground one or two minutes before Mrs. Collins testified that she had seen the appellant shoot her from the porch. ![]() At trial it was established that at the time of the shooting the appellant had been standing on the front porch of his nearby home holding a loaded shotgun. ![]() The appellant was charged with the shotgun wounding of his sister, Mae Byrd Collins, on July 6, 1983. We conclude that in the circumstances, the admission of this evidence was error, and we reverse the conviction on that ground. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of an inculpatory extra-judicial statement allegedly made by the appellant. The appellant, Ray Ellis, appeals from a final order of the Circuit Court of Logan County, entered January 13, 1984, which overruled his motion to set aside his conviction of the crime of malicious wounding. *286 Glyn Dial Ellis, Logan, for appellant.Īttorney General's Office, Charleston, for appellee. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |