Charles Albert Massey, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 108
| Va. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Charles Albert Massey III was indicted for two counts of rape and abduction with intent to defile after a preliminary hearing where the victim P.E. testified; P.E. later died before trial.
- At the preliminary hearing P.E. described forcible rape, strangulation, binding with packing tape, and being left near her parents’ home; she also gave several answers indicating memory lapses about prior events.
- The grand jury later added an abduction-with-intent-to-defile count; the preliminary hearing testimony was the primary live testimony of the now-deceased victim.
- At trial the court admitted the transcript of P.E.’s preliminary hearing testimony; the defense presented phone records, a nude photo, and other materials impeaching P.E., and Massey testified claiming consensual sex after a fight.
- Massey was convicted of two rapes and abduction with intent to defile; he moved to set aside the verdict alleging Brady violations, improper admission of preliminary-hearing testimony, and erroneous exclusion of a text message he sought to introduce.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Massey’s Brady, confrontation, and evidentiary challenges and holding exclusion of the text message harmless or non-reversible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Commonwealth’s alleged failure to timely disclose impeachment material (Brady) invalidated prior cross-examination and barred use of the preliminary hearing transcript | Commonwealth withheld inconsistent statements (lease dispute; June 5 account) that could impeach P.E., denying effective cross-examination | Statements were collateral or disclosed before trial and not materially prejudicial under Brady | No Brady violation: statements collateral or not material; no prejudice shown |
| 2. Whether impeachment material discovered after the preliminary hearing but before trial required exclusion of the prior testimony | Defense could not confront P.E. with after-discovered impeachment (phone records, nude photo) at the hearing, so confrontation right was impaired | Defense received the material before trial and used it at trial; prior cross-examination still occurred at the hearing | Denied: right to confrontation satisfied because defense had opportunity to cross-examine at preliminary hearing and to present impeachment at trial |
| 3. Whether the preliminary hearing judge improperly limited cross-examination (bias/motive) and whether P.E.’s memory lapses made her unavailable | Ruling on relevance cut off needed questions about collaboration with P.E.’s father and motive to fabricate; repeated “I don’t recall” answers were feigned making cross-examination ineffective | No adequate proffer of excluded testimony; the record shows the jury heard relevant admissions; ordinary memory lapses do not render witness unavailable | Denied: no preserved proffer; no constitutional violation; memory lapses and objections did not render prior testimony inadmissible |
| 4. Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding Defendant’s Exhibit 14 (text message: “Is it sick that I’m making myself look really good right now just to piss him off?”) | Message showed bias/animus and present sense of P.E. to undercut credibility and suggest motive to fabricate | Text was tangential and not sufficiently relevant; jury already had ample evidence of animus and impeachment | Denied: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Longshore v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 3 (Va. 2000) (admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony when witness is unavailable and prior cross-examination occurred)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require prior opportunity for cross-examination and witness unavailability)
- Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895) (historical framing of confrontation right and prior cross-examination)
- Fisher v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 808 (Va. 1977) (preliminary-hearing testimony may support charges added later when facts were developed at hearing)
- Schneider v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 609 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (Virginia law on preliminary-hearing testimony complies with Crawford)
- Hicks v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 289 Va. 288 (Va. 2015) (elements for establishing Brady violation)
- Workman v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 633 (Va. 2006) (Brady framework and defendant’s prejudice requirement)