The West Virginia Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Damian Lanell B-Smith, affirming his sentence for multiple sexual offenses against a child. The court's ruling, filed on November 13, 2026, has significant implications for how courts handle child witness testimony in criminal trials.

B-Smith was convicted of serious charges, including first-degree sexual assault and sexual abuse, following allegations that he committed these offenses against a child named R.C. The court's ruling addressed procedural issues that arose during the trial, particularly concerning the removal of the jury from the courtroom during R.C.'s testimony.

Background

The case began when a Berkeley County grand jury indicted B-Smith on June 1, 2022, on six counts related to sexual offenses against R.C., who was under twelve years old at the time of the incidents. The charges included two counts of first-degree sexual assault, one count of first-degree sexual abuse, and three counts of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust. The alleged offenses occurred in November 2021.

Prior to the trial, the State of West Virginia sought permission for R.C. to testify outside the presence of B-Smith and the jury, citing concerns about the child's emotional well-being. An expert testified that R.C. would experience significant fear if he had to testify in front of B-Smith. The court ultimately decided to allow R.C. to testify via closed-circuit television, which meant that B-Smith and the jury would be removed from the courtroom during his testimony.

The Ruling

The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the circuit court erred by removing the jury from the courtroom while R.C. testified, but this error did not substantially prejudice B-Smith's case. Chief Justice Bunn delivered the opinion of the court, stating, "Although the circuit court plainly erred by removing the jury, this error did not substantially prejudice Mr. B-Smith and we will not disturb the jury's verdict on that ground." The ruling emphasized that while the procedures followed were not ideal, they did not affect the outcome of the trial.

In addressing B-Smith's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence against him, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The court noted that a criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence takes on a heavy burden, and in this case, the evidence presented at trial was deemed adequate to uphold the jury's verdict.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future cases involving child witnesses. The court's decision clarifies the standards for when a jury can be removed from the courtroom during a child's testimony. While it recognized that the circuit court's actions constituted an error, the ruling also established that not every procedural misstep warrants a new trial, especially if the defendant cannot demonstrate that their rights were substantially affected.

The decision reinforces the importance of balancing the rights of defendants with the need to protect vulnerable witnesses, particularly children. It highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that child witnesses can provide testimony without undue stress while still upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether B-Smith plans to appeal the decision further. However, given the nature of the case and the serious charges involved, it is possible that further legal actions could be pursued.