State v. Ayers

282 S.E.2d 876, 168 W. Va. 137, 1981 W. Va. LEXIS 730
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 9, 1981
Docket14414
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 282 S.E.2d 876 (State v. Ayers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Ayers, 282 S.E.2d 876, 168 W. Va. 137, 1981 W. Va. LEXIS 730 (W. Va. 1981).

Opinion

Neely, Justice:

Appellant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance. His indictment was roughly four months after the commission of the crime and appellant assigns as error pre-indictment and pre-trial delay. While pre-indictment and pre-trial delay can prejudice a defendant, there was no such prejudice in this case. Appellant requested an instruction which would have told the j ury that appellant’s inability to account for his activities on the night in question could be attributable to the four month hiatus. The court refused the instruction and in doing so did not abuse his discretion. Whether pre-indictment delay has caused actual prejudice requiring curative action is always an issue addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

*138 The police undercover agent attempted to testify that after the drug buy he procured defendant’s photograph to verify his identity. Appellant contends that this implied to the jury a previous criminal record. However, appellant then argues that the eye witness identification was weak. The immediate comparison of appellant’s name and physical description with existing police files was crucial to verification of the undercover agent’s identification. The court correctly admitted the agent’s testimony about the comparison of his personal observation with the file photograph and correctly limited the scope of the testimony by refusing to allow discussion of the photograph’s exact origin.

The court’s instruction on alibi which indicated that the burden of establishing alibi was on the defendant, but that the burden was met if the alibi raised a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s presence at the crime was correct. While the trial court did behave discourteously to counsel on occasion no prejudice resulted and the error was harmless.

Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hundley v. Ashworth
382 S.E.2d 573 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1989)
State v. Hutchinson
342 S.E.2d 138 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Bennett
304 S.E.2d 28 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Richey
298 S.E.2d 879 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Maynard
289 S.E.2d 714 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 S.E.2d 876, 168 W. Va. 137, 1981 W. Va. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ayers-wva-1981.