# State v. Newcomb

> West Virginia Supreme Court · June 23, 2009 · 223 W. Va. 843

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852918

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. Paul NEWCOMB, Defendant Below, Appellant
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 23, 2009
- **Citations:** 223 W. Va. 843; 679 S.E.2d 675; 2009 W. Va. LEXIS 67
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Benjamin
- **Judges:** Workman, Benjamin
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852918

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that trial court stayed further discovery pending its ruling on summary judgment motions that had been filed

## Opinion text

BENJAMIN, Chief Justice
concurring:
I concur with the majority decision to affirm the appellant’s conviction. However, I *870 write separately because I believe the appellant’s statement to Ray Bryant, an EMT, was made during a custodial interrogation.
First, it is clear that the appellant was in custody when the statement at issue was made in that he had been handcuffed by Deputy Harvey. Therefore, a reasonable person in the appellant’s position would have considered his freedom curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest. Also, it is significant that the appellant made the admission that he stabbed the victim in response to Mr. Bryant’s direct interrogatory “Did you stab that guy?” Mr. Bryant’s question is the type of inquiry that a law enforcement officer would make pursuant to the investigation of a crime and not the type of question that a healthcare worker would ask pursuant to treatment. Of further significance is the fact that Mr. Bryant was also a part-time police officer. In this situation, the notion that Mr. Bryant changed roles from a law enforcement officer to an EMT as easily as he changed uniforms is not consistent with human nature. When Mr. Bryant asked the appellant whether he stabbed the victim, Mr. Bryant was aware of the ongoing police investigation into the stabbing, he was aware that the appellant was most likely a suspect because he was in handcuffs, and he was aware that Deputy Harvey was present and was privy to any statement made by the appellant. For these reasons, I believe that the appellant was subjected to a custodial interrogation when he admitted that he stabbed the victim. Because this interrogation occurred before the appellant was Mirandized, his statement should not have been admitted at trial.
However, regardless of my belief that the appellant’s statement was improperly admitted at trial, I believe that the admission constitutes harmless error. It is clear to me in light of the substantial evidence of guilt that the error in admitting the appellant’s statement to Mr. Bryant did not prejudice the appellant at trial. Accordingly, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852918. Public record. Not legal advice.