Summary of Opinion: State v. Phillips, No. 6541 (W. Va. Apr. 22, 1930)

Factual and Procedural Background

D. M. Phillips was prosecuted in the common pleas court of Cabell County and convicted of aiding and abetting in the operation of a moonshine still. The State presented four witnesses whose testimony, though substantially denied by the defendant when he testified, the court found amply supported the jury's verdict. The defendant appealed, asserting trial-court error in (1) the rejection of his instruction No. 6 and (2) the court's refusal to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial based on alleged after-discovered evidence. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the conviction and affirmed the judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in refusing instruction No. 6, which would have told the jury that mere transportation by the defendant of a moonshine still at the request of the operator is not sufficient to convict him of aiding and abetting in its operation.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence consisting solely of matter intended to impeach certain State witnesses.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

The trial court should have given instruction No. 6, which would have instructed the jury that mere transportation of a moonshine still at the operator's request is insufficient to establish guilt for aiding and abetting its operation.
The verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted because of after-discovered evidence (presented by affidavits) intended to impeach certain State witnesses.

State's Arguments

This opinion does not contain a detailed account of the State's legal arguments beyond the record showing presentation of testimony by four State witnesses and the State's representation on appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Ison, 104 W. Va. 217, 139 S.E. 704	Instruction that singles out certain facts and gives them undue prominence to the exclusion of other equally important facts is improper.	The court relied on this principle to conclude that instruction No. 6 was improper because it would single out the fact of transportation while other acts by defendant tending to prove the charge were in evidence.
Wadkins v. Digman, 82 W. Va. 623, 96 S.E. 1016	After-discovered evidence offered simply to contradict or impeach a witness does not warrant a new trial.	Included among authorities cited (via State v. Lemon) to support denial of a new trial based solely on impeachment material.
State v. Stowers, 66 W. Va. 198, 66 S.E. 323	After-discovered impeachment evidence is insufficient to justify a new trial.	Cited (via State v. Lemon) as precedent supporting the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial.
State v. Williams, 14 W. Va. 851	After-discovered evidence that only impeaches witnesses will not warrant a new trial.	Cited (via State v. Lemon) to reinforce the rule denying retrial for mere impeachment evidence.
State v. Lemon, 84 W. Va. 25, 99 S.E. 263, 265	Collects and applies the rule that after-discovered evidence offered simply to contradict or impeach a witness will not warrant a new trial (citing prior authorities).	The court invoked State v. Lemon as the authority summarizing the rule and applied it to reject the defendant's claim for a new trial based on affidavits aimed at impeachment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in two parts corresponding to the defendant's objections:

On the rejected instruction: the court observed that the State's evidence showed numerous acts by the defendant that tended to prove the charged offense beyond mere transportation. Because the proffered instruction (No. 6) would have singled out the act of transportation and thereby given undue prominence to one fact to the exclusion of other equally important facts, the instruction was properly refused. The court expressly cited the principle from State v. Ison that such singling-out instructions are improper.
On the after-discovered evidence: the court noted that the affidavits offered by the defendant sought only to impeach certain State witnesses. The court applied the established rule—recognized in Wadkins v. Digman, State v. Stowers, State v. Williams, and summarized in State v. Lemon—that after-discovered evidence offered merely to contradict or impeach a witness does not justify granting a new trial. Because the tendered material's sole purpose was impeachment, the motion for a new trial based on that evidence was properly denied.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The judgment of the trial court was Affirmed.

Implications:

The defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting the operation of a moonshine still is upheld; the trial court correctly refused instruction No. 6 and properly denied a new trial based on after-discovered impeachment evidence.
The decision applies existing state law principles concerning (a) the impropriety of instructions that single out particular facts to the exclusion of others and (b) the rule that after-discovered evidence limited to impeachment does not warrant a new trial. The opinion does not announce a new legal rule beyond applying those established principles.

Show full summary ...

STATE v. PHILLIPS

LITZ, JUDGE:

The defendant, D. M. Phillips, was convicted in the common pleas court of Cabell county on a charge of aiding and abetting in the operation of a moonshine still. The evidence of four witnesses for the state, though substantially denied by the defendant as a witness in his own behalf, amply supports the finding of the jury.

The defendant insists that the trial court erred in rejecting his instruction No. 6 and in refusing to set aside the verdict and grant him a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence. The instruction in question, if granted, would have told the jury that the mere transportation by the defendant of a moonshine still at the request of the operator thereof is not sufficient to convict him of aiding and abetting in its operation. As the evidence for the state shows numerous other acts of the defendant tending to prove the charge, the instruction was, for that reason alone, properly rejected. "An instruction which singles out and gives undue prominence to certain facts in evidence to the exclusion of other facts equally important and as decisive of the issues involved, is improper." State v. Ison, 104 W. Va. 217, 139 S.E. 704.

The sole purpose of the alleged after-discovered evidence, set forth in affidavits filed by the defendant on his motion for a new trial, is to impeach certain state witnesses. "After-discovered evidence, offered simply to contradict or impeach a witness, will not warrant the granting of a new trial. Wadkins v. Digman, 82 W. Va. 623, 96 S.E. 1016; State v. Stowers, 66 W. Va. 198, 66 S.E. 323; and State v. Williams, 14 W. Va. 851." State v. Lemon, 84 W. Va. 25, 99 S.E. 263, 265.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

STATE v. PHILIPS