778 S.E.2d 579
W. Va.2015Background
- Michael Williams was tried for being a felon in possession of a firearm after a McDonald’s parking-lot shooting; jury acquitted him on related counts but convicted him on the felon-in-possession count.
- Victoria Combs, a McDonald’s employee, gave a statement to the investigating trooper within ~30 minutes of the shooting and testified for the State at trial.
- Eight months before the shooting Combs had entered a pretrial diversion (deferred adjudication) for a felony conspiracy charge; she completed probation and the charge was dismissed before trial.
- The State moved in limine to bar inquiry into the terms of Combs’s pretrial diversion and probation; the circuit court granted the motion but held an in camera hearing probing inducement or pressure.
- At the in camera hearing Combs denied any promises, inducement, or pressure; the circuit court reaffirmed the in limine ruling and Williams was prevented from cross-examining her about the diversion terms.
- Williams appealed, arguing the restriction violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation/right to probe witness bias; the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Williams’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by barring inquiry into Combs’s pretrial diversion/probation | Williams: diversion/probation could have biased Combs to cooperate; cross-examination needed to show possible inducement (citing Davis) | State: Combs was never convicted; Rule 609 requires a conviction to impeach with prior crimes; diversion was unrelated in time and motive; no factual basis for inducement | Court affirmed: exclusion proper — no conviction under Rule 609 and no factual nexus showing likely inducement or bias; in camera hearing negated inducement claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (recognizes Sixth Amendment confrontation right in state prosecutions)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (probationary status can be probative of witness bias where witness may be a suspect or subject to revocation)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (improper restriction of cross-examination on bias can be constitutional error)
- United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (framework for assessing Confrontation Clause limits on cross-examination: relevance, countervailing interests, and sufficiency for assessing credibility)
- State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640 (sets standard of review for new-trial denials: abuse of discretion for rulings, clearly erroneous for facts)
- State v. Richey, 171 W.Va. 342 (trial court has discretion over scope of cross-examination; credibility, bias are legitimate areas)