State of West Virginia v. David K., 238 W. Va. 33

Background

David K. was indicted for multiple felonies for sexual contact with his then-14-year-old stepdaughter, A.R.; at trial A.R. began testifying but became unresponsive when asked about the abuse.
The trial judge, sua sponte and after a bench conference, ordered A.R. transported to the magistrate court to finish testimony via live closed‑circuit television (CCTV); defense counsel did not object and conducted cross‑examination over the link.
The State introduced four inculpatory sources: two police interviews (one reduced to a signed written statement), a recorded police‑cruiser video of incriminating statements, and a statement to his wife; defendant testified and denied the conduct, claiming a false confession.
No written motion under W.Va. Code § 62‑6B‑3(a) was filed seeking CCTV testimony, and the statutory evidentiary hearing, expert psychologist/psychiatrist report, and findings were not conducted.
Defendant moved for a new trial arguing the court violated the statutory procedural safeguards and his Confrontation Clause rights; the court denied the motion, sentenced him, and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument (David K.)	State’s / Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by ordering a child witness to testify via live CCTV without a written motion and the §62‑6B‑1‑et‑seq. procedure	Court violated the statute (§62‑6B‑3(a) et seq.) and the Confrontation Clause by sua sponte ordering CCTV without the required motion, hearing, expert report, or findings	Court had inherent authority to manage trial proceedings, and statutory safeguards were not triggered absent a written motion	The court erred in failing to follow the statutory §62‑6B procedure (motion, hearing, expert report, findings) before permitting CCTV testimony
Whether the error is reviewable and plain despite lack of contemporaneous objection	Error was constitutional; plain‑error review should apply because confrontation rights are fundamental	Defense forfeited or invited the error by not objecting at trial; any error was not plain or prejudicial	The error was plain (clear/obvious) but harmless under the facts; defendant did not show actual effect on the verdict
Whether the Confrontation Clause was violated (necessity and reliability under Maryland v. Craig)	Failure to follow statutory safeguards violated confrontation rights guaranteed by Craig and state constitution	CCTV preserved oath, cross‑examination, and demeanor observation; trial court observed trauma in real time and proceeded to protect the child—satisfying Craig	Under Craig and the record (child’s observable trauma; full cross‑examination over video), confrontation concerns were ameliorated; any constitutional error was harmless given overwhelming inculpatory evidence
Impact of separation‑of‑powers / role of statute in defining procedure	Statute prescribes procedural safeguards; failure to follow statute is error	Trial courts retain inherent/supervisory authority to manage the courtroom and may act sua sponte in exigent circumstances	Majority enforces statute for triggering CCTV but deems deviation harmless here; concurring/dissenting opinions argue trial court had inherent authority and the statute may not trump judicial rulemaking (separation‑of‑powers tension)

Key Cases Cited

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (Confrontation Clause permits one‑way testimony for child witness only upon case‑specific finding of necessity and reliability)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (beneficiary of a constitutional error must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that error was harmless)
State v. Vance, 207 W. Va. 640 (2000) (standard of review for circuit court rulings: abuse of discretion for rulings, clearly erroneous for facts, de novo for legal questions)
State v. Miller, 194 W. Va. 3 (1995) (plain error doctrine: four‑part test to trigger plain‑error review)
State v. Marple, 197 W. Va. 47 (1996) (discussion of plain error affecting substantial rights)