Permissible Scope of Uncharged Conduct and Sentencing Discretion in West Virginia: State v. Peacher

Introduction

In State of West Virginia v. Robert Peacher, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia clarified two important aspects of criminal procedure: (1) the use of uncharged-conduct evidence at bond-revocation and sentencing phases, and (2) the default rule requiring consecutive sentences unless the court orders otherwise. Robert Peacher was indicted on burglary, first-degree sexual assault, strangulation, domestic battery and harassment charges after an alleged pattern of stalking, violence and a violent home invasion/sexual assault. Following a two-day bench trial, he was convicted on all counts, his bond was revoked mid-trial based on uncharged misconduct, and the circuit court imposed consecutive terms for the most serious offenses. Peacher appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, bond revocation, the consecutive-sentence order, and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Peacher waived his Rule 404(b) objection to use of surveillance footage at bond revocation by failing to object when the trial court considered it. It further explained that the rules of evidence, including Rule 404(b), do not strictly apply at sentencing or bond-revocation hearings. The Court also confirmed that under W. Va. Code § 61-11-21 all sentences run consecutively by default unless the sentencing court expressly orders them to run concurrently. Finally, it found that the State introduced more than sufficient evidence—as measured by the “any rational trier of fact” standard—to support Peacher’s convictions for burglary, second-degree sexual assault, strangulation, domestic battery, and harassment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Coleman v. Sopher, 201 W. Va. 588, 499 S.E.2d 592 (1997) – timely Rule 404(b) objections are required to preserve error.
• State v. Goodnight, 169 W. Va. 366, 287 S.E.2d 504 (1982) – sentences within statutory limits and based on permissible factors are not reviewable.
• State ex rel. Dunlap v. McBride, 225 W. Va. 192, 691 S.E.2d 183 (2010) – rules of evidence do not strictly apply at sentencing.
• State v. Moles, No. 18-0903, 2019 WL 5092415 (W. Va. Oct. 11, 2019) – defining impermissible sentencing factors.
• State v. Stone, 229 W. Va. 271, 728 S.E.2d 155 (2012) – standard for sufficiency of evidence review (“any rational trier of fact”).
• State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995) – credibility and weight questions lie with the factfinder.
• State v. Beck, 167 W. Va. 830, 286 S.E.2d 234 (1981) – a sexual-offense conviction may rest on uncorroborated victim testimony.
• State v. Trail, 236 W. Va. 167, 236 S.E.2d 616 (2015) – appellate courts will not disturb credibility determinations.

Legal Reasoning

1. Waiver of Rule 404(b) Objection: Peacher did not object when the circuit court viewed surveillance of uncharged conduct to decide bond revocation. Under Coleman, failure to object forfeits appellate review of Rule 404(b) issues.

2. Evidentiary Relaxation at Bond Revocation and Sentencing: The Court reiterated that “the rules of evidence … do not strictly apply at sentencing hearings.” The same principle covers bond-revocation hearings mid-trial.

3. Permissible Sentencing Factors: While impermissible factors include race, religion and socioeconomic status, Peacher argued Rule 404(b) evidence was similarly improper. The Court refused to treat Rule 404(b) evidence as an impermissible sentencing factor, especially given the evidence was not even mentioned at sentencing.

4. Default Consecutive Sentences: By statute (W. Va. Code § 61-11-21), sentences for separate offenses run consecutively unless the court, in its discretion, orders concurrency. The circuit court properly imposed consecutive terms for burglary, second-degree sexual assault and strangulation.

5. Sufficiency of Evidence Standard: Applying Stone and Guthrie, the Court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Peacher’s own admissions, the victim’s detailed testimony, corroborating witnesses, text messages and photographs easily satisfied the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold.

Impact

State v. Peacher sends several clear messages to practitioners and lower courts in West Virginia:

• Defense counsel must lodge timely objections if they wish to preserve challenges under Rule 404(b), even in the midst of a bench trial.
• Judges are reminded that bond-revocation and sentencing hearings permit broader factual consideration than the guilt-phase of trial.
• Sentencing discretion is affirmed: consecutive terms are the norm unless specific, justified reasons are stated for concurrent service.
• Appellate review of sufficiency remains highly deferential, especially in bench trials where credibility findings are paramount.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 404(b) – “Other Acts” Evidence: Evidence of crimes or bad acts not charged may not be used to prove character in the guilt phase, unless a timely objection is made. At sentencing or bond revocation, the rule is relaxed.
• Forcible Compulsion and Sexual Intrusion: Under WV Code § 61-8B-4, any non‐consensual contact (including digital penetration) accomplished by force satisfies second‐degree sexual assault.
• Strangulation Statute: Under § 61-2-9d, applying pressure to the neck that causes injury or loss of consciousness is a felony, even if no marks appear externally.
• Burglary Elements: Entering a dwelling “with intent to commit a criminal offense” is sufficient; breaking is not required if entry is without the owner’s permission.
• Waiver Doctrine: Failure to object at trial to a procedural error generally forfeits the right to raise that issue on appeal.
• Consecutive vs. Concurrent Sentences: Consecutive service is automatic under WV law, but a judge may order concurrent service if the circumstances warrant it.

Conclusion

State v. Peacher stands as a comprehensive affirmation of established West Virginia law on evidentiary waivers, the breadth of permissible evidence at bond-revocation and sentencing hearings, the statutory default of consecutive sentencing, and the rigorous standard for sufficiency of evidence. Defense counsel must remain vigilant in preserving objections. Trial judges retain wide latitude at sentencing, and appellate courts will defer to factual findings and statutory defaults unless a clear legal error is shown. The decision thus fortifies procedural expectations and sentencing norms in West Virginia criminal practice.