## Facts

- Gloria Jean Willett and her husband bought a house in Beckley, West Virginia, while continuing to live in Tampa, Florida, and traveled to Beckley intermittently.
- Police received multiple tips from 2004 to May 2005 alleging drug activity at the house, including reports that a woman from Tampa brought large amounts of Oxycontin to sell and that short-term vehicle traffic suggested drug sales.
- On May 13, 2005, police executed a search warrant at the house and found over 3,000 pills, a handgun, and more than $1,000 in cash.
- The pills included controlled substances such as Oxycontin, Percocet, Roxycodone, and Xanax.
- At trial, the State introduced testimony that Willett had previously sold drugs to a witness (Alan Reed) and a police statement from Willett’s brother supporting the account.
- Willett objected that the prior-sale evidence was inadmissible “other acts” evidence offered to show criminal propensity under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b).
- A jury convicted Willett of four counts of possession with intent to deliver and one count of conspiracy to commit a felony; the trial court denied her motion for a new trial based on the 404(b) ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Willett’s prior drug sales under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b).
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial where Willett argued the prior-acts evidence was improper character evidence and unfairly prejudicial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of Willett’s motion for a new trial and left the convictions intact.
- The court held the prior drug-sale evidence was admitted for permissible non-character purposes, including motive, planning, and intent.
- The court concluded the trial court properly determined the evidence’s probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice and therefore did not abuse its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) bars other-acts evidence offered solely to prove character or propensity, but permits such evidence for non-propensity purposes (including motive, plan, and intent).
- Before admitting Rule 404(b) evidence, the State must articulate a legitimate non-character purpose, and the trial court must evaluate probative value against unfair prejudice and make an on-the-record ruling.
- Appellate review of Rule 404(b) admissibility decisions is deferential; reversal generally requires an abuse of discretion.
- In drug cases, prior sales may be relevant to show intent to distribute and to explain the significance of quantity and surrounding circumstances, provided the evidence is not used as propensity proof.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Willett’s convictions, holding that testimony about prior drug sales was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) to show motive, plan, and intent, and that the trial court reasonably found the evidence more probative than unfairly prejudicial when denying a new trial.


State v. Willett, 223 W. Va. 394, 674 S.E.2d 602 (W. Va. 2009)