## Facts

- Tanya Harden shot and killed her husband, Danuel Harden, with a shotgun in their home; she immediately admitted the shooting.
- Harden was charged with first-degree murder and asserted self-defense, describing hours of severe domestic violence and threats directed at her and three children in the home.
- Evidence showed Danuel had been heavily drinking; his blood-alcohol content at death was 0.22%.
- Trial evidence indicated Danuel beat Harden with his fists and with a shotgun, sexually assaulted her, and repeatedly threatened to kill her and the children.
- A physician documented extensive injuries consistent with violent assault, including facial contusions and a nasal fracture.
- Child witnesses corroborated threats and violence, including testimony that Danuel retrieved a shotgun, threatened to shoot Harden, and struck her with the gun.
- Harden testified she shot Danuel immediately after the assault while he remained awake, threatening, and capable of carrying out the threats.
- The State argued a “cooling-off period” occurred and contended Danuel was asleep or unconscious when shot, relying largely on circumstantial scene evidence.
- A jury convicted Harden of first-degree murder; the court imposed a life sentence with possibility of parole.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Harden did not act in self-defense.
2. If the evidence was insufficient, whether the proper remedy was entry of a judgment of acquittal rather than a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated the first-degree murder conviction.
- The court held the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Harden did not act in self-defense.
- The court remanded with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal, rendering other asserted errors moot.

## Legal Principles

- Once a defendant introduces some evidence of self-defense, the prosecution bears the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- On sufficiency review, the question is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the State disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A speculative or merely consistent alternative reconstruction of events does not satisfy the State’s burden to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When a conviction is reversed for legally insufficient evidence, the proper remedy is entry of a judgment of acquittal rather than a retrial.

## Conclusion

Because the record strongly corroborated prolonged, extreme violence and threats and the State’s “cooling-off/asleep” theory did not negate imminent danger beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found the evidence legally insufficient to disprove self-defense, vacated the murder conviction, and ordered an acquittal.


State v. Harden, 679 S.E.2d 628 (W. Va. 2009)