close

Superior Court affirms sentence

4 min read

The state Superior Court has affirmed the sentence of a Nemacolin man convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his estranged wife, whose body was found Nov. 20, 2009 in the living room of her mobile home in Crucible.

On the seventh day of a 10-day jury trial in December 2011, Scott J. Baker, 42, pleaded guilty to a general count of homicide. Taking the stand, he admitted killing his wife, Melissa Ann Baker, 30, who was strangled and whose throat was cut with a knife.

The jury subsequently heard testimony regarding Baker’s degree of guilt and found Baker guilty of first-degree murder as well as intimidation of a witness, fabricating or tampering with evidence and criminal solicitation to commit homicide. He was sentenced by Judge William Nalitz to life in prison.

Baker appealed the case to Superior Court claiming insufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict him of first-degree murder as well as the other charges.

In considering the sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the court said the standard of review it must apply involves considering all evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the “verdict winner,” the Commonwealth, and determining whether sufficient evidence was introduced for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court said it agreed with the Commonwealth that the appellant ignored the court’s standard of review by examining evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant.

Claims made by Baker that testimony was inconsistent or unreliable were more properly a weight of evidence challenge, the court said.

The jury heard testimony Baker contends was inconsistent and unreliable, however, and it was able to evaluate it in its deliberations, it said.

“Nevertheless, we find the Commonwealth provided sufficient evidence to prove each element of first-degree murder,” the court said.

For a first-degree murder conviction, the Commonwealth must prove a person was unlawfully killed, the defendant was responsible for the killing and the defendant acted with malice and a specific intent to kill.

The defendant took the stand and admitted to killing his wife, the court said. The jury could infer the defendant had a specific intent to kill and acted with malice based on his use of a deadly weapon, it said.

Baker also argued the jury should have considered his diminished capacity defense and found he was too intoxicated to commit murder.

Baker had testified that he “blacked out” after arguing with his wife and when he came to he was on top of her with his forearm around her neck.

These matters, the court said, are reserved for the jury, which obviously weighed the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert refuting the findings of diminished capacity.

That expert also testified the appellant was capable of forming the intent to kill, which was supported by the testimony of Baker’s son from another relationship, Nathaniel Baker, who stated his father told him a week before the murder that Melissa Baker was going “to disappear,” the court said.

The appellant also argued evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of criminal solicitation in regard to Nathaniel Baker.

A person is guilty of solicitation if he encourages or requests another person to engage in conduct which would constitute a crime or an attempt to commit a crime, the court said.

Nathaniel Baker not only testified his father told him Melissa was going to disappear, he also discussed what was going to happen and told him to go to the bathroom and stay there when he arrived at the mobile home the night of the murder.

Nathan complied with his father’s request and went to the bathroom. The jury could reasonably infer the appellant’s request to his 12-year-old son was “equivalent to a command, which he obeyed,” the court said.

By having him follow these instructions, the appellant engaged his son in the commission of the crime.

In arguing Nathan had never been threatened or intimidated by his father to follow his instructions, the court quoted the trial court’s opinion which stated “a father who instructs his 12 year old son (and the father in this case is an imposing physical figure) to do or say something is intimidating.” The statute covers more than “naked threats,” it said.

The court also ruled against the appellant on claims the court erred in allowing certain evidence to be presented at trial and on claims of prosecutorial misconduct in regard to questions asked witnesses who testified and to pictures of the victim presented to the jury.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today