## Facts

- Teresa Rollins was found dead on October 5, 2009, pinned underwater beneath a fallen tree in a pond on the Rollins property in Nicholas County, West Virginia.
- Gary Lee Rollins, Teresa’s husband, told investigators her death was accidental and described his morning activities away from the pond before discovering her body around lunchtime.
- The State prosecuted the case as a homicide and introduced evidence of prior domestic violence by Rollins against Teresa, including photographs of bruises and testimony that Teresa attributed the injuries to Rollins.
- The State also presented medical and forensic testimony from multiple experts disputing the accident theory.
- A jury convicted Rollins of first-degree murder without a recommendation of mercy, and the circuit court entered judgment on December 18, 2012.

## Issues

1. Whether allegedly improper prosecutorial remarks in closing argument required reversal despite the absence of a timely objection.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike a juror for cause during voir dire and by not removing a juror later discovered to have been a former client of the prosecutor.
3. Whether evidence of prior domestic violence was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b) or was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
4. Whether allowing the State to call three medical expert witnesses resulted in improper cumulative and prejudicial evidence.
5. Whether Rollins was entitled to relief based on alleged unfair surprise from medical expert testimony purportedly inconsistent with an expert report.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held Rollins waived the prosecutorial-misconduct claim by failing to make a timely objection and failed to show plain error or prejudice.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings on juror qualification and no showing of actual bias or resulting prejudice.
- The court upheld admission of domestic-violence evidence as proper other-acts evidence offered for non-character purposes, with limiting instructions and Rule 403 balancing.
- The court concluded the three medical experts were not needlessly cumulative and their testimony did not unfairly prejudice Rollins.
- The court held the unfair-surprise claim was not preserved because Rollins did not contemporaneously object or seek remedial relief at trial.

## Legal Principles

- Improper closing-argument remarks generally require a timely objection and request for curative action; absent preservation, relief requires a showing of plain error affecting substantial rights and resulting prejudice.
- Juror-qualification and related voir dire rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; the trial court’s assessment of juror impartiality is given substantial deference, and the defendant must show bias or prejudice.
- Evidence of prior acts, including domestic violence, may be admitted under Rule 404(b) for non-propensity purposes such as intent, malice, and absence of accident when relevant to disputed issues in a homicide case.
- Rule 404(b) admissions remain subject to Rule 403 balancing, and limiting instructions may be used to confine the jury’s consideration to permissible purposes.
- The admission of multiple expert witnesses is not reversible error merely because testimony overlaps; exclusion as cumulative depends on whether evidence is needlessly repetitive and unfairly prejudicial.
- Claims of unfair surprise from trial testimony must be preserved through contemporaneous objection and a request for appropriate relief to permit meaningful appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Rollins’s first-degree murder conviction without mercy, concluding that several appellate claims were waived or unpreserved and that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting domestic-violence other-acts evidence and multiple medical experts to rebut the defense theory of accidental death.


State v. Rollins, 233 W. Va. 715, 760 S.E.2d 529 (W. Va. 2014)