In re C.B., 20-0175

Background

Petitioner C.B., age 17 years 7 months, was charged in juvenile court with child abuse and child neglect causing serious bodily injury to his ~7‑week‑old son; medical exam reported multiple healing rib fractures and femur/tibia fractures.
The State moved to transfer the juvenile proceeding to adult criminal jurisdiction under W. Va. Code § 49‑4‑710; the transfer hearing was continued from Nov. 22 to Dec. 18 to allow discovery.
At the transfer hearing Corporal Keffer testified and relayed statements made to him by Nurse Diehl and Dr. Phillips about the infant’s injuries; petitioner objected on hearsay/Confrontation Clause grounds.
Petitioner gave several Mirandized statements to Keffer admitting he sometimes squeezed the baby when frustrated, described falling/rolling onto the infant, and later saying he “probably shook the baby too hard.”
The court also received school records and testimony about truancy, discipline problems, cohabitation with an older girlfriend, and marijuana use; the court found probable cause, concluded petitioner was sufficiently mature, and transferred the case to criminal jurisdiction.
On appeal petitioner challenged (1) admission of medical statements via the officer (Confrontation), (2) the continuance, (3) admission of school exhibits removed from the courtroom, and (4) sufficiency of findings on prospects for rehabilitation; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause — officer relaying medical personnel opinions	Admission of Nurse Diehl and Dr. Phillips’ statements via Cpl. Keffer violated the Sixth Amendment and WV Constitution because those medical witnesses did not testify and petitioner had no prior cross‑examination opportunity	Any Confrontation error was harmless because petitioner’s own admissions to Keffer independently supported transfer	Court: Transmission of medical opinions violated Confrontation, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given petitioner’s admissions, so no reversal
Continuance of initial transfer hearing	Court abused discretion in granting State’s continuance request; no good cause	Continuance was brief and aimed to provide full discovery to petitioner; reasonable exercise of discretion	Court: No abuse of discretion — brief continuance to allow discovery was proper
Chain of custody / exhibits (school records)	Exhibits lost when witness accidentally left courtroom with them, breaking chain and invalidating authentication	Exhibits were authenticated, marked, there is no evidence of alteration; any removal was inadvertent and not prejudicial	Court: No abuse of discretion — admission proper; no evidence of tampering or prejudice
Sufficiency of transfer findings (prospects for rehabilitation)	Transfer was improper because court did not sufficiently analyze evidence of petitioner’s prospects for rehabilitation under statutory factors	Court considered statutory factors (mental/physical condition, maturity, home/family, school, attitude) and found they favored transfer	Court: Findings not clearly wrong or against preponderance of evidence; transfer affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements trigger Confrontation Clause; prior cross‑examination required unless declarant unavailable)
State v. Mechling, 219 W. Va. 366 (W. Va. 2006) (explains testimonial vs non‑testimonial statements under Crawford)
State v. Blevins, 231 W. Va. 135 (W. Va. 2013) (applies Crawford: non‑testifying medical examiner’s opinions cannot be admitted without opportunity for cross‑examination)
State v. Kennedy, 229 W. Va. 756 (W. Va. 2012) (testimony relaying autopsy opinions of non‑testifying pathologist violates Confrontation Clause)
State v. Gary F., 189 W. Va. 523 (W. Va. 1993) (Confrontation rights apply at juvenile transfer hearings)
State v. Sonja B., 183 W. Va. 380 (W. Va. 1990) (court must make careful, detailed analysis of statutory factors before transfer)
State v. Bannister, 162 W. Va. 447 (W. Va. 1978) (transfer findings reversed if clearly wrong or against preponderance)
State v. Barefield, 240 W. Va. 587 (W. Va. 2018) (constitutional errors are reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)