BREAKING NEWS: Murder Conviction for Julia Surbaugh Set Aside by WV Supreme Court; New Trial to be Scheduled

Julia Surbaugh will receive a new trial

after the WV Supreme Court reversed

her first degree murder conviction

on November 20, 2012.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals today (November 20, 2012) reversed the first degree murder conviction and life sentence without mercy of Julia Surbaugh, sending the case back for a new trial.

On May 20, 2010, a jury returned a guilty verdict on the charge of first degree murder. The jury did not recommend mercy and made a specific finding that a firearm was used in the commission of the incident, giving Surbaugh a life sentence.  She filed her appeal citing four major errors that occurred during her trial before Circuit Judge Richard Facemire.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals basically reversed her conviction because the trial court failed to give a jury instruction on how the jury should consider the impact of the evidence of Julia's good character and how, if at all, it  might cast doubt as to her guilt.

Of her four different grounds for appeal, the Court rejected the first three grounds discussed below and reversed the conviction on the fourth ground. Surbaugh will remain incarcerated pending the new trial.

Surbaugh first argued that her husband's statements (that Julia shot him) to various medical and law enforcement personnel violated her right of confrontation, since she could not obviously cross-examine her deceased husband, Michael Surbaugh. The Court found that these statements were not made for purposes of later testifying at trial, but were made and considered to be "excited utterances" by the decedent. To qualify as an "excited utterance" the statements had to have been made when Michael experienced a starling event or condition, that he reacted while under the stress or excitement of that event and not from reflection and fabrication, and his statements related to the startling event or condition.  The Court found that the statements met this test and did not reverse Julia's conviction on this ground.

Surbaugh next argued that her third statement to law enforcement (in which she admitted shooting her husband) should not have been admitted at trial because she was in custody and was not properly advised of her right to remain silent. The Court rejected this ground because the officer who was actually questioning her at the time of her admissions was not aware that an arrest warrant had been obtained, and therefore she was not in custody.

The third and fourth grounds of her appeal deal with the Circuit Judge's refusal to instruct the jury on what is commonly referred to as the "battered woman's syndrome" and an instruction on how her good character could be relied upon to cast reasonable doubt of her guilt.

On the battered woman's syndrome instruction, the Court rejected this argument, stating that "while there was certainly evidence of marital discord, there was not sufficient evidence of the alleged threats and abuse requiring the giving of this type of instruction. The petitioner herself, when on the stand testifying on direct examination on her own behalf, did not discuss prior or present day abuse. She presented a case for self-defense, which was argued to the jury, instructed to the jury and eventually rejected by the jury when it returned a guilty verdict against the petitioner."

Surbaugh requested an instruction that said:  "Julia Surbaugh has introduced evidence of her good character. Good character is a circumstance to be considered by the jury with all other facts and circumstances in the case on the question of the guilt or innocence of Julia Surbaugh, and can, alone, give rise to a reasonable doubt of her guilt on your part; but if you believe Julia Surbaugh is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, her good character cannot be taken into consideration to mitigate, justify or excuse the commission of the crime."

Judge Facemire did not give this instruction to the jury.

The Supreme Court found that the instruction as offered was in error since it allowed a jury to consider good character alone to ignore the evidence offered by the State (emphasis added).  However, even though Surbaugh's proposed instruction was in error, the Judge failed to give any guidance to the jury on how to consider evidence of a person's good character.  The Court said that "there was no guidance to the jury via specific instruction or by the general charge on how to interpret evidence of good character. Therefore, the instructional error is sufficient enough to warrant a reversal of the conviction and a remand for a new trial. Upon retrial, the petitioner is entitled to an instruction on good character, if such evidence is introduced."

Here is a link to read the entire opinion of the Supreme Court, including a good summary of the facts presented at the trial:
http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/docs/fall2012/11-0561.pdf