<img alt="Brand" src="/images/eLaws/logo-elaws.png" class="img-responsive pull-left logo-head" />

(1995).
2.     “A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court must review all the
evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury might have drawn in favor
of the prosecution. The evidence need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that
of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.             Credibility
determinations are for a jury and not an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set
aside only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which
the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are
inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.” Syllabus point 3, State v. Guthrie,

194 W. Va. 657

(1995).
i
3.     This Court will not reverse a denial of a motion to sever properly joined
defendants unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion resulting in clear
prejudice.
4.     Under Rule 14(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, if
the joinder of defendants for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the State, the court has
discretion to sever the defendants’ trials or provide whatever other relief that justice requires.
5.     A trial court should grant a severance under Rule 14(b) of the West
Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would
compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants or prevent the jury from making
a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.
6.     “Upon review, this Court will afford great weight to a trial court’s
findings as to whether a peremptory strike was used to advance racial or sexual
discrimination.” Syllabus point 4, Parham v. Horace Mann Insurance Co.,

200 W. Va. 609

490 S.E.2d 696

(1997).
ii
7.      We review jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky,

(1986), de novo, but we review underlying factual findings for
clear error. We review the trial court’s ultimate disposition for abuse of discretion.
8.      “When an object or article has passed through several hands while being
analyzed or examined before being produced in court, it is not possible to establish its
identity by a single witness, but if a complete chain of evidence is established, tracing the
possession of the object or article to the final custodian, it may be properly introduced in
evidence.” Syllabus point 2, State v. Charlot,

157 W. Va. 994

206 S.E.2d 908

(1974).
9.      “There are three components of a constitutional due process violation
under Brady v. Maryland,

(1963), and State
v. Hatfield,

169 W. Va. 191

286 S.E.2d 402

(1982): (1) the evidence at issue must be
favorable to the defendant as exculpatory or impeachment evidence; (2) the evidence must
have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the evidence must
have been material, i.e., it must have prejudiced the defense at trial.” Syllabus point 2, State
v. Youngblood,

221 W. Va. 20

650 S.E.2d 119

(2007).
10.     “The question as to which witnesses may be exempt from a
sequestration of witnesses ordered by the court lies within the discretion of the trial court,
iii
and unless the trial court acts arbitrarily to the prejudice of the rights of the defendant the
exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal.” Syllabus point 4, State v.
Wilson,

157 W. Va. 1036

207 S.E.2d 174

(1974).
11.    “Several basic rules exist as to cross-examination of a witness. The first
is that the scope of cross-examination is coextensive with, and limited by, the material
evidence given on direct examination.         The second is that a witness may also be
cross-examined about matters affecting his credibility. The term ‘credibility’ includes the
interest and bias of the witness, inconsistent statements made by the witness and to a certain
extent the witness’ character. The third rule is that the trial judge has discretion as to the
extent of cross-examination.” Syllabus point 4, State v. Richey,

171 W. Va. 342

298 S.E.2d 879

(1982).
12.    A trial court’s ruling on authenticity of evidence under Rule 901(a) of
the West Virginia Rules of Evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been
an abuse of discretion.
iv
Davis, Justice:
This opinion involves two consolidated criminal appeals from final orders
entered by the Circuit Court of Berkeley County. The petitioners in this matter were
prosecuted in a joint trial. In Case No. 15-0878, the petitioner, Rashaun R. Boyd (“Mr.
Boyd”), was convicted of attempted murder,1 wanton endangerment2 and possession of a
firearm.3 In this appeal, Mr. Boyd contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
convictions, and that this Court’s standard of review set out in Syllabus point 3 of State v.
Guthrie,

194 W. Va. 657

(1995), should be overruled. In Case No. 15-0894,
the petitioner, Christopher R. Wyche (“Mr. Wyche”), was convicted of voluntary
manslaughter,4 wanton endangerment5 and possession of a firearm.6 In this appeal, Mr.
Wyche contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, (2) his trial
1
Mr. Boyd was sentenced to three to fifteen years imprisonment for this
conviction.
2
Mr. Boyd was sentenced to five years imprisonment for this conviction, which
was enhanced by an additional five years imprisonment based upon a recidivist charge and
conviction.
3
Mr. Boyd was sentenced to five years imprisonment for this conviction. Mr.
Boyd’s sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
4
Mr. Wyche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for this conviction.
5
Mr. Wyche was sentenced to five years imprisonment for this conviction,
which was enhanced by an additional five years imprisonment based upon a recidivist charge
and conviction.
6
Mr. Wyche was sentenced to five years imprisonment for this conviction. Mr.
Wyche’s sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
1
should have been severed, (3) the State impermissibly struck a juror, (4) evidence of gunshot
residue should have been excluded, (5) the State disclosed certain evidence late, (6) a
testifying police officer was permitted to sit at the State’s table, (7) he was not permitted to
ask certain questions about an investigating officer, (8) evidence of a dashcam video was
improperly admitted, (9) the State made impermissible comments during closing argument,
and (10) fingerprint records were improperly admitted. After carefully reviewing the briefs,
the arguments of the parties, the legal authority cited, and the record presented for
consideration, we affirm the final judgments in these consolidated appeals.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The events leading to the prosecutions in this case began during the early
morning hours of September 16, 2012, in the parking lot of a nightclub called Brickhouse
Bar, in Martinsburg, West Virginia.7 At that time, the victims in this case, Antoine Stokes
and Samson Edmond, left the nightclub and were walking toward their car when Mr.
Edmond complimented a passing woman about her visible tattoos.8 The woman, Sierra
7
There was testimony at trial that the relevant events began somewhere between
2:20 am and 2:40 am.
8
It appears that Mr. Stokes and Mr. Edmond came to the nightclub together in
Mr. Stokes’ car.
2
Frisbee, smiled and continued walking with her friend, Tamara Burnett, toward a Cadillac.9
The petitioners were standing near the Cadillac.10 The Cadillac belonged to Mr. Boyd.
The record indicates that after Mr. Boyd gave Ms. Burnett the car keys and told
her to drive, he yelled profanity at Mr. Edmond because of his comment to Ms. Frisbee about
her tattoos. Mr. Boyd rushed toward Mr. Edmond and punched him. The two men started
to fight. Mr. Stokes joined in the fight and struck Mr. Boyd. During the fight, Mr. Stokes
noticed Mr. Wyche move away from the Cadillac, but lost sight of him. After two gunshots
were fired, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Edmond retreated from the fight. As the two men ran away,
more gunshots were fired. Mr. Edmond yelled out that he was hit. Mr. Stokes dragged Mr.
Edmond behind a vehicle before running for safety behind the nightclub.
After the shooting stopped, the petitioners jumped into the backseat of the
Cadillac, and Ms. Burnett drove away. Mr. Stokes went to the aid of Mr. Edmond and dialed
911 on his cell phone. When the police arrived, Mr. Stokes provided a description of the
petitioners and the car they drove off in. Mr. Edmond was taken to a hospital where he was
9
Ms. Frisbee and Ms. Burnett came to the nightclub together in Ms. Frisbee’s
car. It appears that Ms. Frisbee lost her car keys while at the nightclub. Mr. Boyd knew Ms.
Frisbee and offered to let them ride with him.
10
An apparent acquaintance of the petitioners, Jimmy Vick, was passed out in
the backseat of the car.
3
pronounced dead from a single bullet that entered the left side of his neck and severed two
arteries as it existed through his shoulder.
Ms. Burnett drove into Maryland. Based upon information circulated by West
Virginia law enforcement authorities, a Maryland State Police officer spotted the Cadillac
driven by Ms. Burnett and turned on his siren and lights. Mr. Boyd told Ms. Burnett not to
stop, but she pulled over and stopped the car. As Ms. Burnett got out of the car, Mr. Boyd
jumped into the front seat of the car and drove off. A police pursuit ensued. Eventually the
police were able to capture the petitioners after the Cadillac wrecked on the side of the road.
In January 2014, the petitioners were indicted jointly for first degree murder,
attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of
a firearm by a prohibited person. A jury trial was held in January 2015. The petitioners were
tried together. Mr. Boyd did not put on a case-in-chief. Mr. Wyche called one witness during
his case-in-chief, an expert on gunshot residue. The jury convicted Mr. Boyd of attempted
murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. Mr. Wyche was convicted of
voluntary manslaughter, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm.11 Both
petitioners subsequently were convicted on recidivist charges, which resulted in an additional
11
Relevant evidentiary issues involved in the prosecution are presented under
specific assignments of error.
4
five years being added to their sentences. This appeal followed the denial of post-trial
motions.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We will dispense with our usual standard of review section because each of the
assignments of error has its own review criteria.
III.
DISCUSSION
The petitioners have assigned ten errors herein. We will address each issue in
turn.
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Both petitioners have argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the
verdicts against them. Insofar as the evidence presented to sustain the convictions for both
petitioners was essentially the same, we will not provide a separate discussion for each
petitioner on this issue.
5
Our cases have made clear that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
in a criminal case is a weighty burden to overcome. In Syllabus points 1 and 3 of State v.
Guthrie,

194 W. Va. 657

(1995), we said the following:
1. The function of an appellate court when reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to
examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether
such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable
person of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of
the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden.
An appellate court must review all the evidence, whether direct
or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution
and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that
the jury might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The
evidence need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save
that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Credibility determinations are for a jury and
not an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside
only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it
is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are
inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.[12]
12
In Mr. Boyd’s first assignment of error, he has asked this Court to overrule
Syllabus point 3 of State v. Guthrie,

194 W. Va. 657

(1995), because of
language in the syllabus point requiring that the record contain no evidence of guilt before
setting aside a jury verdict for insufficient evidence. According to Mr. Boyd, this language
is inconsistent with the standard of review cited in Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307

99 S. Ct. 2781

61 L. Ed. 2d 560

(1979). We summarily reject this contention. In formulating
Syllabus point 3 of Guthrie, Justice Cleckley expressly noted that we were overruling the
(continued...)
6
(Footnote added). With these review principles in mind, we examine the evidence presented.
As previously noted, Mr. Boyd did not call any witnesses and Mr. Wyche
called only one witness, an expert on gunshot residue. In this proceeding, Mr. Boyd contends
that there was no evidence that he possessed a gun, and no gun was ever found; therefore,
his convictions for attempted murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm
could not be sustained.13 He also argues that the gunshot residue found on his hands could
12
(...continued)
prior review standard used by this Court and adopting the review standard used in Jackson.
See

Guthrie, 194 W. Va. at 667

, 461 S.E.2d at 173 (“After contrasting [State v. Starkey,

161 W. Va. 517

244 S.E.2d 219

(1978),] and its progeny with the standard of review announced
in Jackson, we believe it is desirable to reconcile our differences and to adopt the federal
standard of review both as to Jackson generally and as to the standard of review in
circumstantial evidence cases.”). Additionally, we agree with the State that Mr. Boyd has
isolated a few words in Syllabus point 3 of Guthrie and misapplied the true meaning of the
standard of review requirements. In its proper context, the language cited by Mr. Boyd states:
“Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record contains no evidence,
regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Syl. pt. 3, in part, Guthrie,

194 W. Va. 657

. This passage requires
the presence of evidence in order for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See
United States v. Mbaye,

827 F.3d 617

, 619-20 (7th Cir. 2016) (“In analyzing Mbaye’s
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the government and we will overturn the verdict only when the record contains no
evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); United States v. Anderson,

108 F.3d 478

, 481 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Indeed, [o]nly when the record contains no evidence,
regardless of how it is weighted, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, may an appellate court overturn the verdict.” (internal quotations and citations
omitted)).
13
Mr. Boyd also made the curious argument that the most he “should have been
convicted of is voluntary manslaughter because the evidence was that the shot happened
(continued...)
7
have come from any number of sources, including “handcuffs, being in a police car, a
holding cell or a processing area at the jail, or just being near the assailant that shot
Edmond.” Mr. Boyd also contends that he fled from the Maryland police because he had
drugs in his car, not because of any guilt involving the shooting at the nightclub.
Mr. Wyche argues there was no evidence that he possessed a gun, and no gun
was ever found; therefore, his convictions for voluntary manslaughter, wanton endangerment,
and possession of a firearm could not be sustained. He also argues that the gunshot residue
found on his hands could have come from any number of sources, including “being in the
vicinity of the gun when it was fired . . . , or from any of the law enforcement contact they
had that evening–handcuffs, officer gloves, officer flashlights, officer gun belts, the police
cruiser, or the cells wherein they were detained until their release, or any myriad location that
may have been exposed to firearms.”
Both petitioners also argue that the police failed to follow up on DNA found
in vomit at the crime scene, which was identified as belonging to a person named Roy
Winston, who had a criminal record. They also contend that the police failed to follow up
13
(...continued)
during the altercation between [him] and Edmond.” This argument appears to assume that
the jury found that Mr. Boyd was the person who shot Mr. Edmond. The evidence as
presented by the State showed circumstantially that Mr. Wyche fired the shot that killed Mr.
Edmond, and that Mr. Boyd fired a weapon after Mr. Edmond had already been shot.
8
on evidence that a violent felon named Ronald Maurice Oliver was implicated in a shooting
in Martinsburg and that he drove a green Lincoln, “similar” to the Cadillac driven by Mr.
Boyd.
We are not persuaded by the petitioners’ arguments that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain their convictions. To begin, the surviving victim, Mr. Stokes,
identified the petitioners in court as the persons who got into a fight with him and Mr.
Edmond. Mr. Stokes testified that, when the fight started, Mr. Wyche was near the Cadillac
but moved away from it, and he lost sight of him. As the fight progressed, Mr. Stokes
testified that he heard two shots. When the shots were fired, Mr. Stokes indicated that he and
Mr. Edmond retreated and began running. Mr. Stokes testified that, as they ran away, he
heard more shots, but that the second shots sounded different, as though fired from a
different gun.14 Mr. Stokes testified that, when he looked back, he saw the petitioners
running after them. Mr. Stokes heard Mr. Edmond yell out that he was hit, so he stopped and
dragged Mr. Edmond behind a vehicle and ran behind the nightclub. Mr. Stokes saw the
petitioners leave the parking lot in a Cadillac. Mr. Stokes testified that, at the time of the
shooting, he saw only the petitioners in the area. The State argued that the first two shots
were fired by Mr. Wyche, because he was not directly engaged in the fighting. The State
14
There was evidence introduced that the police found bullet casings at the
crime scene from both a .25 and a .40 caliber weapon.
9
further argued that Mr. Edmond was struck by one of the shots fired by Mr. Wyche. It also
was contended by the State that Mr. Boyd fired the shots that occurred after the fight broke
up. The State relied on a video tape of the parking lot area which, according to the State’s
brief, showed “Mr. Stokes and Mr. Edmond running around the side of the bar away from
the shots. The video also captures Mr. Boyd following Mr. Stokes and Mr. Edmond with his
arm outstretched in front of him.”15
Although both petitioners argue that the gunshot residue found on their hands
could have come from innocent sources after they were arrested by the Maryland police,
neither petitioner addresses the gunshot residue evidence presented by the State concerning
Jimmy Vick. As previously noted, Mr. Vick was passed out in the backseat of the Cadillac
when the petitioners fled the crime scene. When the police arrested the petitioners in
Maryland, they also arrested Mr. Vick.16 During the trial, the jury was informed that gunshot
residue testing was performed on the petitioners and Mr. Vick. The jury was told that
gunshot residue was found on the hands of the petitioners, but “there was no gunshot residue
on the hands of Mr. Vick.”
15
The video was not made part of the record in this appeal.
16
It does not appear that Mr. Vick was prosecuted for any crime in this case.
10
The State also presented testimony from Tamara Burnett. As previously
mentioned, Mr. Boyd gave Ms. Burnett the car keys to the Cadillac before the shooting
occurred and told her to drive. Ms. Burnett testified that she did not see the shooting, but that
when she heard the gunshots, she put the car in gear and started to drive. After the car
moved a little, the petitioners jumped into the backseat. Ms. Burnett testified that when the
petitioners got into the car, they kept telling each other to shut up and not say anything. Ms.
Burnett also informed the jury that when the Maryland police got behind the car and
activated its lights and siren, she pulled over and stopped, but Mr. Boyd kept telling her to
keep driving. Ms. Burnett testified further that when she complied with police instructions
to exit the car, Mr. Boyd jumped into the driver’s seat, pushed her out of the car, and drove
away.
It is clear that the evidence of the petitioners’ guilt was circumstantial.
However,
[i]t is now well recognized and firmly settled that proof
of guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence. . . . This
has been termed a rule of necessity, it being obvious that if guilt
could not be proved by such evidence it would be impossible in
a great many instances, to successfully prosecute perpetrators of
crime.
State v. Bailey,

151 W. Va. 796

, 804,

155 S.E.2d 850

, 855 (1967). See United States v.
Glenn,

312 F.3d 58

, 64 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he prosecution may prove its case entirely by
11
circumstantial evidence so long as guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.”); United
States v. Starks,

309 F.3d 1017

, 1021 (7th Cir. 2002) (“And popular misconceptions aside,
circumstantial evidence is no less probative of guilt than direct evidence.”); United States v.
Henderson,

693 F.2d 1028

, 1030 (11th Cir. 1982) (“Circumstantial evidence can be and
frequently is more than sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”). In our
review of the evidence, we are convinced that it was sufficient for the jury to find the
petitioners guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reject the petitioners’ sufficiency
of the evidence argument.
B. Severance of Trial
The next assignment of error raised by Mr. Wyche, is that the circuit court
committed error in denying his motion to sever his trial from that of Mr. Boyd. The State
argues that the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Wyche’s motion for severance. We
agree.
We have held, in the context of a motion to sever criminal charges, that an
abuse of discretion standard is applied in reviewing the issue. Syl. pt. 3, State v. Hatfield,

181 W. Va. 106

380 S.E.2d 670

(1989) (considering a motion for severance of offenses filed
under W. Va. R. Crim. P. 14(a)). We now hold that this Court will not reverse a denial of
a motion to sever properly joined defendants “unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of
12
discretion resulting in clear prejudice.” United States v. Flores,

362 F.3d 1030

, 1039 (8th
Cir. 2004). See United States v. DeCologero,

530 F.3d 36

, 52 (1st Cir. 2008) (holding that
appellant “bears the burden of making a strong showing that prejudice resulted from the
denial of severance, and prejudice in this context means more than just a better chance of
acquittal at a separate trial” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); United States v.
Tutis,

167 F. Supp. 3d 683

, 692 (D.N.J. 2016) (“[A] defendant bears a heavy burden in
gaining severance, and must pinpoint clear and substantial prejudice resulting in an unfair
trial.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Rule 8(b) and Rule 14(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure
govern the issues of joinder and severance of defendants for trial. The following is provided
by Rule 8(b):
Two or more defendants may be charged in the same
indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated
in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or
transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such
defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or
separately, and all of the defendants need not be charged in each
count.
Rule 14(b) states, in relevant part:
If the joinder of defendants in an indictment, an
information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a
defendant or the State, the Court may sever the defendants’
trials, or provide whatever other relief that justice requires.
13
As pointed out by the State, in this appeal Mr. Wyche does not contend that he was
improperly joined in the indictment with Mr. Boyd pursuant to Rule 8(b). Therefore our
focus is only upon Rule 14(b).
The current version of Rule 14(b) was adopted by this Court in 2006. Prior to
that time, severance of co-defendants was mandatory under former Rule 14(b) when
requested by a defendant or the State.17 Also, prior to the adoption of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, this Court held “that a court does not have jurisdiction in a criminal case to try
jointly those defendants who choose to be tried separately.” State ex rel. Whitman v. Fox,

160 W. Va. 633

, 646,

236 S.E.2d 565

, 573 (1977). In view of the current version of Rule
14(b), we now hold that, under Rule 14(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure,
if the joinder of defendants for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the State, the court
has discretion to sever the defendants’ trials or provide whatever other relief that justice
requires.
The discretion given to trial courts under Rule 14(b) to require co-defendants
be tried jointly is consistent with the general rule that defendants “indicted together are tried
17
The former version of Rule 14(b) read, in part, as follows:
Upon a joint indictment or information in a felony case against
several persons, the court shall upon motion of any defendant or
the state order separate trials.
14
together to prevent inconsistent verdicts and to conserve judicial and prosecutorial
resources.” United States v. DeCologero,

530 F.3d 36

, 52 (1st Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
The Eighth Circuit has made the following observations regarding a unitary trial for co
defendants:
When defendants are properly joined, there is a strong
presumption for their joint trial, as it gives the jury the best
perspective on all of the evidence and therefore increases the
likelihood of a correct outcome. This presumption can only be
overcome if the prejudice is severe or compelling.
United States v. Lewis,

557 F.3d 601

, 609 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). To warrant severance, prejudice from joinder must be of a type against which the
court is unable to afford protection. United States v. Lujan,

529 F. Supp. 2d 1315

, 1326
(D.N.M. 2007). The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue as follows:
[A] district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only
if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a
specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury
from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence. Such
a risk might occur when evidence that the jury should not
consider against a defendant and that would not be admissible
if a defendant were tried alone is admitted against a
codefendant. For example, evidence of a codefendant’s
wrongdoing in some circumstances erroneously could lead a
jury to conclude that a defendant was guilty. When many
defendants are tried together in a complex case and they have
markedly different degrees of culpability, this risk of prejudice
is heightened. Evidence that is probative of a defendant’s guilt
but technically admissible only against a codefendant also might
present a risk of prejudice. Conversely, a defendant might
suffer prejudice if essential exculpatory evidence that would be
available to a defendant tried alone were unavailable in a joint
trial. The risk of prejudice will vary with the facts in each case,
15
and district courts may find prejudice in situations not discussed
here. When the risk of prejudice is high, a district court is more
likely to determine that separate trials are necessary, but, as we
indicated . . . , less drastic measures, such as limiting
instructions, often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice.
Zafiro v. United States,

506 U.S. 534

, 539,

113 S. Ct. 933

, 938,

122 L. Ed. 2d 317

(1993)
(citations omitted).
In view of the decision in Zafiro, we now hold that a trial court should grant
a severance under Rule 14(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure only if there
is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the
defendants or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.
Turning to the case at hand, Mr. Wyche contends that he was prejudiced by the
unitary trial because the State presented a video that showed Mr. Boyd wiping his hands on
his jeans when they were asked to submit to a gunshot residue test. According to Mr. Wyche,
the jury could infer that Mr. Boyd was trying to remove gunshot residue from his hands and
that this “impugned” him by his association with Mr. Boyd. Mr. Wyche alleges next that he
was prejudiced by the unitary trial because it denied him the opportunity to cross-examine
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Wyche contends that if they had had separate trials, he would have had the
compulsory means with which to call Mr. Boyd as a witness. Finally, Mr. Wyche contends
that evidence of flight from the police prejudiced him because he was not the driver of the
16
car. In conjunction with this argument, Mr. Wyche argued that he was unable to cross-
examine Mr. Boyd about his decision to flee from the police.
The State contends that if the trials were separated, Mr. Boyd would still
remain silent and not testify against himself at Mr. Wyche’s separate trial. Courts “have held
that [b]are assertions that co-defendants will testify are insufficient to warrant separate
trials.” United States v. Davis,

397 F.3d 173

, 182-83 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Davis also indicated “that a defendant’s claim that his co-defendants would
testify on his behalf must be supported by the record, and the record must show more than
simply the defendant’s request for declaration of [his co-defendants’] intent to testify.”

Id. Other than

his self-serving assertions, Mr. Wyche has presented no evidence that Mr. Boyd
would testify at a separate trial. See United States v. Tutis,

167 F. Supp. 3d 683

, 693 (D.N.J.
2016) (“Nevertheless, ‘finger-pointing and blame-shifting’ alone do not call for severance,
nor do ‘bald assertions that co-defendants will testify.’”).
Mr. Wyche asserted that some inferential evidence of Mr. Boyd’s guilt, i.e.,
wiping gunshot residue from his hands and driving the car to evade arrest, impacted his case.
Courts have characterized this type of argument as the “spillover effect” of evidence. In
doing so, it has been said that spillover effect “from evidence that is more damaging against
a co-defendant than that against the defendant is not sufficient to warrant severance. . . . The
17
defendant must show that the spillover prejudice will prevent the jury from individualizing
each defendant.” United States v. Lujan,

529 F. Supp. 2d 1315

, 1326 (D.N.M. 2007)
(citations omitted). See United States v. Causey,

834 F.2d 1277

, 1288 (6th Cir.1987) (“[A]
defendant is not entitled to a severance simply because the evidence against a codefendant
is far more damaging than the evidence against him.”). The State argues in a summary
fashion that Mr. Wyche was not prejudiced because the jury was able to compartmentalize
the evidence and distinguish the conduct of Mr. Wyche from that of Mr. Boyd. Specifically,
although both petitioners faced convictions for first degree murder, the jury convicted Mr.
Wyche of voluntary manslaughter and convicted Mr. Boyd of attempted murder. We agree
with the State that the jury was able to compartmentalize the evidence and that Mr. Wyche
has failed to show that he was prejudiced by a unitary trial. See United States v. Hively,

437 F.3d 752

, 765 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Prejudice can be demonstrated by showing that the jury will
be unable to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to the separate defendants because
of a ‘prejudicial spillover effect.’”).
C. Peremptory Strike of Juror
Mr. Wyche contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to use a
peremptory strike to remove the only juror of “color”. Mr. Wyche argued before the circuit
court that under the United States Supreme Court decision in Batson v. Kentucky,

476 U.S. 18

79,

(1986), the State could not strike the only juror of color
because of his race. The State contends that it did not strike the juror because of his race.
We have held that, “[u]pon review, this Court will afford great weight to a trial
court’s findings as to whether a peremptory strike was used to advance racial or sexual
discrimination.” Syl. pt. 4, Parham v. Horace Mann Ins. Co.,

200 W. Va. 609

490 S.E.2d 696

(1997). It also has been recognized, and we so hold, that “[w]e review jury selection
under Batson v. Kentucky,

(1986), de novo, but
we review underlying factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Campa,

529 F.3d 980

, 992 (11th Cir. 2008). See United States v. Mickens, 408 F. App’x 253, 255 (11th Cir.
2011) (“We review for clear error a trial judge’s finding that a prosecutor has exercised
peremptory strikes free of discriminatory intent.”). We review the trial court’s ultimate
disposition for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Villa,

99 F.3d 1135

1996 WL 595633

, at *1 (5th Cir. 1996) (“The Government articulated racially-neutral reasons for the
exercise of its peremptory strikes and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
determined that Villa had failed to meet his burden of proving purposeful discrimination.”);
United States v. Thompson,

74 F.3d 1236

1995 WL 783391

, at *1 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The
district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Thompson’s objection to the striking
of potential jurors pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky,

(1986)[,] because the
government articulated race-neutral explanations for each challenged strike.”).
19
We begin by noting that “[i]t is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for a member of a cognizable racial
group to be tried on criminal charges by a jury from which members of his race have been
purposely excluded.” Syl. pt. 1, State v. Marrs,

180 W. Va. 693

379 S.E.2d 497

(1989). In
the Batson decision, the Supreme Court articulated the basic analytical framework to apply
when determining whether a peremptory strike was used for a discriminatory purpose. In
cases in which peremptory strikes are challenged as being discriminatorily motivated, the
Batson framework is used to help ensure the equality of all citizens and the integrity of our
jury selection process. We addressed the Batson framework in Syllabus point 6 of Parham
as follows:
If a peremptory strike is challenged as being
discriminatorily motivated in violation of equal protection, it is
the duty of the trial court to apply the analytical framework set
forth by the Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky,

(1986), and its progeny,
together with any elucidations thereof adopted by this Court,
before the venireperson is removed from the panel. If the
challenge proves meritorious, the trial court shall disallow the
strike.

200 W. Va. 609

490 S.E.2d 696

. It also was held in Parham that “[w]hen a peremptory
strike is challenged, the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with,
and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Syl. pt. 2, Parham,

id. 20 We

adopted the Batson framework in Syllabus points 2 and 3 of Marrs, as
follows:
2. To establish a prima facie case for a violation of equal
protection due to racial discrimination in the use of peremptory
jury challenges by the State, “the defendant first must show that
he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the
prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from
the venire members of the defendant’s race. Second, the
defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be
no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection
practice that permits ‘those to discriminate who are of a mind to
discriminate.’ Finally, the defendant must show that these facts
and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the
prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the
petit jury on account of their race.” [Citations omitted.] Batson
v. Kentucky,

at 96,

at 1722,

(1986).
3. The State may defeat a defendant’s prima facie case
of a violation of equal protection due to racial discrimination in
selection of a jury by providing non-racial, credible reasons for
using its peremptory challenges to strike members of the
defendant’s race from the jury.

180 W. Va. 693

379 S.E.2d 497

.
The record in this case indicates that Mr. Wyche is an African-American.
During jury selection, it was determined that a potential juror, M.W., was an ethnic minority.
On his jury questionnaire, M.W. indicated that he was Caucasian. Upon further inquiry at
trial, it was determined that M.W. was an Hispanic, whose mother was Cuban. Over the
objection of Mr. Wyche, the State exercised a peremptory strike to remove M.W. Mr. Wyche
21
argued that the State struck M.W. because he was an ethnic minority in violation of Batson.18
The State presented the following reasons to the trial court for striking M.W.:
The reason we’re striking him, as the Court knows, as we earlier
said, this man is being prosecuted for DUI from my office right
now. It’s an active case. I don’t want any appearance that we
are giving him favors by whatever verdict he may or may not
give in this regard. I don’t want him to feel any pressure
because I’m involved in this particular instance. It has nothing
to do with race whatsoever.
The other also troubling item with this individual is that he had
some hearing difficulty which we know we can fix and we can
cure. But it was concerning to the state that he did not appear to
really understand or did not hear a lot of the Court’s questions
originally. And that’s also concerning. That may be just the
courtroom.
But the primary reason for striking him is the pending DUI
charge that’s active. He has a hearing scheduled tomorrow
which, of course, the Court can move; but it’s still a problem
with the state. It’s an appearance for the state, and we have a
problem with it.
Mr. Wyche argued below and in this appeal that the State’s reasons for striking
M.W. were pretextual. Mr. Wyche contended that M.W. was not disqualified from serving
as a juror because of the pending DUI charge, and that if M.W. had a jury trial, the jury
18
See United States v. Rodriguez,

935 F.2d 194

, 195 (11th Cir. 1991) (“In
[Powers v. Ohio,

499 U.S. 400

111 S. Ct. 1364

113 L. Ed. 2d 411

(1991),] the Supreme
Court held that the equal protection clause and the principles of third party standing, allow
any criminal defendant to object to race-based exclusions of jurors through preemptory
challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded jurors share the same race.”).
22
would not come from the pool that was hearing his case. Mr. Wyche also indicated that the
trial court could assist M.W. with his hearing impairment.
The trial court found that the State’s reason for striking M.W. was not
pretextual. The court found as follows:
THE COURT: . . . The issue really is whether the state has
shown a valid, non-discriminatory reason for exercising its
peremptory to remove [M.W.] from the panel.
The state finds itself in a situation where they have a pending
case against a juror. The juror’s case is actively set and
prosecuted by this office. He [M.W.] has a certain
understanding of it which, you know, didn’t seem all that
nefarious. But as the state explains, no matter what it does from
this point going forward, if the jury votes to acquit, and he gets
hammered on the DUI case, they’re retaliating against him for
an unfavorable verdict. If he votes to convict, and the jury
comes out or his case–his DUI case comes out to be this
misunderstanding, which would be his take on it, they’re viewed
as having favored his side. And they have an obligation to
enforce the laws.
I think it’s–you know, this is a particularly valid reason for them
to exercise their rights to excuse the juror and take themselves
out of that situation where they could have it. I’ll note the
argument of Mr. Wyche and his counsel and as adopted by Mr.
Boyd and his counsel and will simply state that that error has
been well made and well preserved. But I just think moving
forward, I have to let the state make its strike based on the
reasons it has given.
23
In view of the record on the issue, we cannot find that the trial court abused its
discretion in rejecting Mr. Wyche’s Batson challenge to striking M.W.19
D. Evidence of Gunshot Residue
Mr. Wyche’s next assignment of error is that the trial court should not have
admitted evidence of the gunshot residue found on his hands. Mr. Wyche has set out four
issues involved with this assignment of error: (1) chain of custody of gunshot residue
evidence, (2) taking gunshot residue sample without warrant or consent, (3) taking gunshot
residue sample without Miranda warning, and (4) excluding gunshot residue evidence as
irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. We will address these issues separately.
At the outset we observe that
“[t]he action of a trial court in admitting or excluding
evidence in the exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed by
the appellate court unless it appears that such action amounts to
an abuse of discretion.” Syllabus point 10, State v. Huffman,

141 W. Va. 55

87 S.E.2d 541

(1955), overruled on other
grounds, State ex rel. R.L. v. Bedell,

192 W. Va. 435

452 S.E.2d 893

(1994).
19
In his post-trial motion and on appeal, Mr. Wyche has provided information
regarding M.W. sitting as a juror several weeks after his trial. The trial court considered this
information and rejected it. The trial court found that the facts involved with the subsequent
case were different from the facts surrounding Mr. Wyche’s case. We agree with the trial
court and reject this newly acquired evidence as demonstrating the State’s reason for striking
M.W. was pretextual.
24
Syl. pt. 1, State v. Calloway,

207 W. Va. 43

528 S.E.2d 490

(1999).
1. Chain of custody of gunshot residue evidence. Mr. Wyche contends that
the gunshot residue evidence should have been suppressed because the State failed to
establish an adequate chain of custody between the taking and testing of the evidence. The
State contends that it properly authenticated the gunshot residue during the suppression
hearing.
The standard of review for an issue involving chain of custody has been stated
by this Court as follows:
The preliminary issue of whether a sufficient chain of
custody has been shown to permit the admission of physical
evidence is for the trial court to resolve. Absent abuse of
discretion, that decision will not be disturbed on appeal.
Syl. pt. 2, State v. Davis,

164 W. Va. 783

266 S.E.2d 909

(1980). We held in Syllabus point
2 of State v. Charlot,

157 W. Va. 994

206 S.E.2d 908

(1974), the following:
When an object or article has passed through several
hands while being analyzed or examined before being produced
in court, it is not possible to establish its identity by a single
witness, but if a complete chain of evidence is established,
tracing the possession of the object or article to the final
custodian, it may be properly introduced in evidence.
In other words, “[c]hain of custody authentication requires testimony of continuous
possession by each individual in the custody link, together with testimony by each that the
25
object remained in substantially the same condition during its presence in his or her
possession.” Louis J. Palmer, Jr.; Robin Jean Davis; and Franklin D. Cleckley, Vol. 2,
Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers, § 901.04[2][c], pg. 440 (6th ed. 2015).
This issue need not detain us. Mr. Wyche has made conclusory allegations
about the authenticity of the gunshot residue evidence, but has failed to show how the
evidence was not what the State presented it to be. During the suppression hearing, the State
presented evidence from the West Virginia law enforcement officer who tested Mr. Wyche’s
hands for gunshot residue while in the Maryland jail. The officer testified that, after he took
samples from Mr. Wyche’s hands, he placed the samples in an envelope and wrote on the
envelope the date and time. The officer said he forgot to indicate the time on the testing
form. The officer testified further that he took the sealed testing kit and stored it until it was
delivered to the West Virginia State Police Laboratory. At trial, the supervisor of the Trace
Evidence Section of the Police Laboratory testified that she received the test kit in a sealed
envelope with the testing officer’s name on it. Mr. Wyche contends that the State’s witness
at trial could not give assurances as to the reliability of the sample and whether it could have
been tainted; therefore, the evidence should not have been admitted. We reject this. “When
the proponent authenticates evidence by tracing a chain of custody, the mere possibility of
a break in that chain does not render the item inadmissible, but is an issue for the jury to
26
consider in determining the sufficiency of the proof.” Palmer, et al., Vol. 2, Handbook on
Evidence, § 901.04[2][c], pg. 439.
2. Taking gunshot residue sample without warrant or consent. Mr. Wyche
also contends that the gunshot residue should have been suppressed because it was taken
from him without a warrant or his consent. The State argues that our case law has made clear
that neither a search warrant nor consent is needed for the police to subject a suspect to
gunshot residue testing.
We previously have recognized that the “superficial examination of a lawfully
arrested individual for evidence of gunpowder residue is not violative of the Fourth
Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Riley,

201 W. Va. 708

, 717,

500 S.E.2d 524

, 533 (1997). As we pointed out in Riley, in the decision
in Cupp v. Murphy,

412 U.S. 291

93 S. Ct. 2000

36 L. Ed. 2d 900

(1973), the United States
Supreme Court upheld the taking of fingernail scrapings from a murder suspect without a
warrant or consent, where police had noted possible blood stains on the hand and had
otherwise established probable cause to arrest. Cupp held that,
considering the existence of probable cause, the very limited
intrusion undertaken incident to the stationhouse detention, and
the ready destructibility of the evidence, we cannot say that this
search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Cupp, 412 U.S. at 296

, 93 S. Ct. at 2004,

36 L. Ed. 2d 900

.
27
The court in United States v. Jones, No. 10-336 JNE/AJB,

2011 WL 1837861

(D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2011), succinctly stated the general rule regarding the testing of a suspect
for gunshot residue without a warrant or consent:
Defendant Jesse Jones argues that gun shot residue evidence
should be suppressed because it was obtained without search
warrant authorization. By its nature, gun shot residue evidence,
like blood alcohol evidence, is subject to loss or destruction in
the absence of immediate affirmative efforts to preserve the
evidence. Warrantless seizure of such evidence is lawful when
there is probable cause to believe that the evidence will be found
and there are exigent circumstances to support the seizure.
Moreover, gunpowder on a suspect’s person is subject to
removal and destruction, and it is therefore reasonable to seize
such evidence from the person as an incident to the suspect’s
arrest. . . . Defendant’s motion to suppress gun shot residue
evidence should be denied.
Jones,

2011 WL 1837861

, at *5.20
20
See United States v. Simmons, 380 F. App’x 323, 330 (4th Cir. 2010) (“The
magistrate judge, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, concluded that Simmons was
lawfully arrested and that, given the inherent destructibility of gun-shot residue evidence, the
police were permitted to run the GSR test without a warrant. The district court adopted that
recommendation, and we conclude that the district court correctly denied the motion to
suppress.”); United States v. Johnson,

445 F.3d 793

, 796 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Taken together,
this evidence was more than sufficient to establish probable cause for Johnson’s arrest.
Accordingly, the arrest, and the gun powder residue test performed incident thereto, were
lawful. The district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.”); Long v. Beres,
No. 3:10CV532,

2013 WL 139342

, at *7 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2013) (“Because probable cause
and exigent circumstances existed to justify the GSR Test of Long’s hands, no Fourth
Amendment violation occurred.”); United States v. Pettiford,

295 F. Supp. 2d 552

, 560-61
(D. Md. 2003) (“Furthermore, the Court finds that exigent circumstances existed in light of
the ready destructibility of the evidence sought. If Detective Jenkins had waited for a
warrant before ordering the GSR test, he would have increased Pettiford’s opportunity to
destroy the evidence by simply washing his hands.”); State v. Beasley,

205 Ariz. 334

, 337,
(continued...)
28
In the instant proceeding, Mr. Wyche was arrested in Maryland and identified
20
(...continued)

70 P.3d 463

, 466 (Ct. App. 2003) (“no warrant was required for a reasonable search incident
to a valid arrest” (citations omitted)); Ray v. State,

304 Ark. 489

, 498,

803 S.W.2d 894

, 899
(1991) (“The gunpowder residue test was administered because appellant was a suspect in
the shooting. Under exigent circumstances, such as where the opportunity to make the test
will exist only for a short time, certain warrantless intrusions have been held to be reasonable
and not in violation of any protected rights.”); People v. Allen,

376 Ill. App. 3d 511

, 520,

875 N.E.2d 1221

, 1228 (2007) (“Because the hand swabbing was so ‘minor an imposition that
the defendant suffered no true humiliation or affront to his dignity,’ we find a search warrant
was not required to justify the GSR test after defendant was in custody and while the
arresting officers were assigned to investigate the April 17 attempt robbery.”); Jones v. State,

213 Md. App. 483

, 501,

74 A.3d 802

, 812 (2013) (“Opinions of the appellate courts of our
sister States are largely consistent with the Federal precedents discussed above, holding that
the warrantless collection of GSR evidence from an individual whom the police have
probable cause to believe has recently fired a gun in the course of committing a crime, does
not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures.”); Hubbert v. State,

759 So. 2d 504

, 508 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (“Because the
chemicals sought to be found on Hubbert’s hand could have been easily and quickly
destroyed, the officers would have been within their rights to swab Hubbert’s hand even over
his objections.”); State v. Coplen,

138 N.C. App. 48

, 57,

530 S.E.2d 313

, 320 (2000)
(“Believing that the above findings of fact adequately support the conclusion that probable
cause and exigent circumstances existed at the time of the gunshot residue test, we hold that
the warrantless search was valid.”); Commonwealth v. Simonson,

148 A.3d 792

, 801 (Pa.
2016) (“Therefore, we conclude that the gunshot residue test has a negligible intrusion upon
an individual’s privacy and that it serves an important function in promoting vital
governmental interests. As such, we conclude that the gunshot residue test constitutes a
reasonable search incident to arrest.”); State v. Lawrence,

154 S.W.3d 71

, 76 (Tenn. 2005)
(“Thus, we conclude that the duct tape evidence and the results of the gunshot residue test
were properly admitted into evidence as obtained incident to an arrest upon probable
cause.”); Johnson v. State, No. 04-13-00766-CR,

2014 WL 7339506

, at *3 (Tex. App. Dec.
23, 2014) (“All of the factors in this case weigh in favor of the conclusion that the swabbing
of Johnson’s hands and fingers for gunshot residue was reasonable.”); Sen v. State,

301 P.3d 106

, 118 (Wyo. 2013) (“Consistent with the conclusions reached in cases set forth above, we
find that, in light of the minimal intrusion caused by the swab for gunshot residue and the
easy destructibility of such evidence, administration of the gunshot residue test was a valid
search incident to arrest.”).
29
by West Virginia law enforcement officers as one of the individuals believed to have used
a firearm in the commission of a crime in West Virginia. The fact that Mr. Wyche was in
custody in Maryland made it extremely likely that any gunshot residue on his hands would
be destroyed by the time he eventually returned to West Virginia.21 Under these facts,
exigent circumstances existed for the minimal intrusion of swabbing his hands for possible
gunshot residue. Although the West Virginia law enforcement officers were outside their
jurisdiction, we generally have recognized that “[a] law enforcement officer acting outside
of his or her territorial jurisdiction has the same authority to arrest as does a private citizen
and may make an extraterritorial arrest under those circumstances in which a private citizen
would be authorized to make an arrest.” Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. State v. Gustke,

205 W. Va. 72

516 S.E.2d 283

(1999). Mr. Wyche’s brief has cited to Gustke, but he has not provided
any argument regarding the extent of the authority of the police acting as a private citizen.
Assuming, without deciding, that the police did not have authority as private
citizens to conduct a gunshot residue test of Mr. Wyche,22 we find that any error in admitting
the gunshot residue evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Syl. pt. 5, State
21
Contrary to suggestions by Mr. Wyche, Deputy Christian testified that he
“assumed that they were under arrest pursuant to the pursuit and being taken into custody.”
22
See State v. Sills,

852 So. 2d 390

, 391-92 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (“[I]n
obtaining consent to conduct the warrantless search of Sills’ home outside their jurisdiction,
the officers were acting under color of office to obtain evidence not available to private
citizens and, therefore, the evidence must be suppressed.”).
30
ex rel. Grob v. Blair,

158 W. Va. 647

214 S.E.2d 330

(1975) (“Failure to observe a
constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”). As previously discussed in this opinion, we have
thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case and find that the evidence was sufficient for
the jury to find Mr. Wyche guilty of all charges without the evidence of the gunshot residue.
3. Taking gunshot residue sample without Miranda warning. Mr. Wyche
further argues that evidence of the gunshot residue should have been suppressed because he
was not given Miranda warnings23 until after residue was removed from his hands. Other
than make this assertion, Mr. Wyche has not cited to any legal authority to support this
insufficiently briefed issue. Consequently, we find this issue to be waived. See State v.
LaRock,

196 W. Va. 294

, 302,

470 S.E.2d 613

, 621 (1996) (“Although we liberally construe
briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are . . . mentioned only in
passing but are not supported with pertinent authority . . . are not considered on appeal.”
(citation omitted)); State v. Lilly,

194 W. Va. 595

, 605 n.16,

461 S.E.2d 101

, 111 n.16 (1995)
(“[C]asual mention of an issue in a brief is cursory treatment insufficient to preserve the issue
on appeal.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)).
23
See Miranda v. Arizona,

384 U.S. 436

86 S. Ct. 1602

16 L. Ed. 2d 694

(1966).
31
We will note that courts addressing the issue of conducting a gunshot residue
test, without a warrant, have found that this test does not implicate the protections of
Miranda. See Jones v. State,

213 Md. App. 483

, 495,

74 A.3d 802

, 809 (2013) (“Moreover,
appellant does not contend, and the record does not indicate that the GSR test was conducted
in conjunction with any interrogation by the police. Therefore, his rights under the
protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment or Miranda v. Arizona,

384 U.S. 436

86 S. Ct. 1602

16 L. Ed. 2d 694

(1966), are likewise inapplicable.”); State v. Odom,

303 N.C. 163

,
167,

277 S.E.2d 352

, 355 (1981) (“We are unable to perceive any difference in the giving of
a gunshot residue test that would require the presence of counsel to protect defendant’s rights
at trial. Thus, we hold that the administration of a gunshot residue test is not a critical stage
of the criminal proceedings to which the constitutional right to counsel attaches and that
defendant’s right to counsel was not violated by the admission of the challenged
testimony.”).
4.   Excluding gunshot residue evidence as irrelevant and unfairly
prejudicial. Mr. Wyche finally argues that evidence of the gunshot residue should have been
excluded as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Rule 401 and Rule 403 of the West
Virginia Rules of Evidence. The State argues that the evidence was relevant and was not
unduly prejudicial. We need not spend any time on this issue because it has not been briefed
sufficiently. The sum total of Mr. Wyche’s argument on this issue is one sentence wherein
32
he states that the evidence was not relevant because it was not properly collected and “the
probative value of the same is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” This is neither legal analysis of the law nor
the facts of the case–this sentence merely contains baseless conclusions. We do not address
conclusions; we address adequately briefed assignments of error. See Sale ex rel. Sale v.
Goldman,

208 W. Va. 186

, 199-200 n.22,

539 S.E.2d 446

, 459-60 n.22 (2000) (deeming
assignment of error that “is terse and lacks any authority to support it” to have been
waived).24
E. The State Disclosed Certain Evidence Late
The next assignment of error by Mr. Wyche is that the trial court should have
granted him a new trial “based upon the prejudicial errors resulting from the State’s Brady
violation in failing to disclose, until the eve of trial and at trial, critical discovery, including
exculpatory material, needed to adequately prepare a defense at trial.” We find no merit to
this issue.
24
The analysis that Mr. Wyche’s brief has under this issue relates to an alleged
Brady violation–failure to turn over evidence–which is the subject of his fifth assignment of
error. The Brady issue that is tersely briefed in this section has no connection with Rule 401
or Rule 403. It is set out as though it was incorrectly cut and pasted into this section. We will
discuss the misplaced Brady material in the fourth assignment of error during our discussion
of the fifth assignment of error.
33
Mr. Wyche contends that the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady
v. Maryland,

(1963). We have held that “[a]
claim of a violation of Brady v. Maryland,

(1963), presents mixed questions of law and fact. Consequently, the circuit court’s factual
findings should be reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and questions of law are
subject to a de novo review.” Syl. pt. 7, State v. Black,

227 W. Va. 297

708 S.E.2d 491

(2010). We have outlined the requirements for showing a Brady violation as follows:
There are three components of a constitutional due
process violation under Brady v. Maryland,