IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
In Re Application of:
Ray Gene Gray
(CV-02-528)
O R D E R
Claimant appeared in person.
Joy M. Bolling, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of West Virginia.
WEBB, JUDGE:
An application of the claimant, Ray Gene Gray, for an award under the West Virginia Crime
Victims Compensation Act, was filed December 6, 2002. The report of the Claim Investigator, filed
March 21, 2003, recommended that no award be granted, to which the claimant filed a response in
disagreement. An Order was issued on May 21, 2003, upholding the Investigator's recommendation
and denying the claim, in response to which the claimant's request for hearing was filed May 27,
2003. This matter came on for hearing September 26, 2003, claimant appearing pro se and the State
of West Virginia by counsel, Joy M. Bolling, Assistant Attorney General.
On April 15, 2001, the 45-year-old claimant was the victim of criminally injurious conduct
in Beckley, Raleigh County. The claimant was visiting the home of Alphonso Grant where he was
assaulted.
The claimant testified at the hearing of this matter that on the evening of April 15, 2001, he had gone to the residence of Alphonso Grant, the alleged offender, to visit. (Transcript, page 7.) The
claimant and the alleged offender had been friends prior to this incident. According to the claimant,
the alleged offender suddenly became enraged for unknown reasons and told the claimant to leave
his home. (Transcript, page 8.) The claimant stated that he was attempting to leave when suddenly
the alleged offender struck him in the head with a forty-ounce glass beer bottle, which seriously
injured him. (Transcript, page 8.) Then, the alleged offender used a baseball bat to strike him
approximately four times in the left leg. (Transcript, page 8.) The claimant testified that he was
bleeding too badly to go home, so his friend, Ronnie Pemberton, took him to Raleigh General
Hospital a few hours after the attack. (Transcript, page 9.) In addition, he stated that another friend,
William Ritchie, contacted the police. (Transcript, page 9.) The claimant also revealed that a female
police officer came to his room at the hospital on the night of the incident and asked him if he wanted
to press charges, which he did. (Transcript, page 9.) Unfortunately, William Ritchie has since passed
away and was never able to give a statement regarding this incident and the time line of events.
(Transcript, page 6.) However, the claimant also testified that Mr. Ritchie had called an ambulance
and that he was taken to the hospital by an ambulance, not his friend. (Transcript, page 8.) On cross-
examination, the claimant testified that Charles Christian took him to the hospital. This contradicts
his earlier testimony. (Transcript, page 25). Further, the claimant stated that he spoke to the police
officer at the hospital around 2:30 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. (Transcript, page 10.) The claimant was
adamant that he went to the hospital the same day of the incident and that he informed a female police
officer that he wanted to press charges against the alleged offender. (Transcript, page 14.) According
to the claimant, he was in the hospital for thirty-three days and was in a coma for two weeks while
in the hospital. (Transcript, page 20.) In spite of being in a coma for two weeks, it was the claimant's testimony that he reported the crime to the police on the first day he was admitted to the hospital,
because he was in and out of consciousness. (Transcript, pages 22-23). The claimant asserted that
the medical records and police reports were incorrect or otherwise inaccurate. (Transcript, page 19.)
He is certain that he reported the crime to the police on the date of the crime while at the hospital.
T
he claimant's medical records indicate that he did not come to the hospital until April 17,
2001, which is two days after the attack. (Transcript, page 17.) Further, the police report completed
by Sergeant T.S. Peck of the Beckley Police Department is dated April 27, 2001. (Transcript, page
17.) In addition, the claimant did not present any independent eyewitness testimony that he did in fact
report the crime to the police on the day of the incident, nor did he present any independent
eyewitnesses to testify that he went to the hospital on the same day of the attack. (Transcript, page
18.)
W.Va. Code §14-2A-14(b) states in part: "... The judge or commissioner may not approve
an award of compensation if the criminally injurious conduct upon which the claim is based was not
reported to a law-enforcement officer or agency within seventy-two hours after the occurrence of the
conduct, unless it is determined that good cause existed for the failure to report the conduct within
the seventy-two hour period."
In the present case, the Claim Investigator's finding was that the claimant did not report the
crime to the police within seventy-two hours after the crime occurred. Therefore, it is the claimant's
burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that "good cause existed for the failure to report
the conduct within the seventy-two hour period." The Court is of the opinion that he did not meet
this burden. The evidence adduced at the hearing of this matter establishes that the claimant did not
report the criminally injurious conduct within the seventy-two hour period. The police report clearly indicates that the criminally injurious conduct occurred on April 15, 2001, and the claimant reported
it on April 27, 2001. There is a twelve-day gap between the criminally injurious conduct and the
filing of the police report. There was no evidence presented by the claimant that he was in a coma
while he was in the hospital. The medical records indicate that he suffered an injury to his left leg
and a closed head injury. Although there is mention of some "confusion" on the part of the claimant
while in the hospital, the medical records state that "the work-up for his confusion that was done in
the hospital were all negative." Since the claimant did not report the criminally injurious conduct
within seventy-two hours, and he failed to show "good cause" for not reporting the conduct, the Court
must deny this claim. Even if the claimant could establish that he reported the crime within the
seventy-two hour period or show good cause for not doing so, he has no damages for which he could
recover from the Crime Victims Compensation Fund.
The Court is constrained by the evidence to stand by its previous ruling; therefore, this claim
must be, and is hereby, denied.
ENTER: _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
JUDGE