State of West Virginia v. Clyde Richey
16-0956
| W. Va. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Clyde Richey was convicted in 1979 of third-degree sexual assault based on testimony by a 14-year-old victim (D.B.); no spermatozoa were detected in testing introduced at trial.
- A cytology slide from the hospital exam ("slide R1") was created before trial; trial counsel was aware of the slide but the State did not introduce it at trial.
- Richey later obtained possession of slide R1 (in 2006) and had private DNA/genetic testing performed; initial testing did not exclude Richey, a later test purportedly excluded him but suggested other contributors.
- Richey moved in Kanawha County circuit court to vacate his conviction and for a new trial based on the slide/test results as newly-discovered, exculpatory evidence; the circuit court denied relief.
- The circuit court rested its denial primarily on: (1) West Virginia Rule of Evidence 412 (rape-shield) barring evidence of other sexual activity, (2) the evidence being aimed merely to impeach the victim, and (3) res judicata and lack of diligence.
- On appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court, the Court affirmed, holding that the slide was not "newly-discovered" because it was known to trial counsel before trial; thus the Frazier test for new trials did not apply to produce relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Richey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rape-shield rule (Rule 412) bars admission of DNA evidence from slide R1 | Richey: Timothy C. permits admission of exculpatory DNA evidence despite Rule 412 exceptions | State: Rule 412 prohibits evidence of other sexual activity; slide R1 would show semen from another source and is barred | Held: Court upheld exclusion under Rule 412 as applied by the circuit court, but disposition rests on different ground (not newly-discovered) |
| Whether slide R1 and its DNA results constitute newly-discovered evidence entitling Richey to a new trial | Richey: DNA results are newly-discovered, exculpatory evidence that would warrant a new trial | State: Slide R1 was known pretrial (trial counsel awareness); DNA testing results do not make the physical evidence "newly-discovered" | Held: Not newly-discovered—slide was within defendant’s knowledge before trial, so Frazier factors do not permit a new trial |
| Whether res judicata bars Richey from presenting this evidence | Richey: No prior court has adjudicated these specific test results | State: Prior litigation and orders, plus long history of attempts, support barring further litigation | Held: Court noted prior litigation and earlier rulings; main dispositive point is lack of newly-discovered evidence, and prior proceedings support finality |
| Whether the Frazier newly-discovered evidence test was misapplied by the circuit court | Richey: Circuit court misapplied Timothy C. and Frazier standards | State: Circuit court properly applied Frazier after finding the evidence was not newly discovered | Held: No misapplication—because evidence was not newly discovered, Frazier analysis properly led to denial of new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Richey, 171 W.Va. 342, 298 S.E.2d 879 (affirming Richey’s 1979 conviction)
- State ex rel. Richey v. Hill, 216 W.Va. 155, 603 S.E.2d 177 (2004) (denying continued relitigation and denying writ to compel DNA testing; emphasizing finality)
- State v. Timothy C., 237 W.Va. 435, 787 S.E.2d 888 (2016) (addressing admissibility of DNA evidence under rape-shield framework)
- State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935, 253 S.E.2d 534 (1979) (sets out the Frazier/Halstead test for newly-discovered evidence requiring a new trial)
- State v. King, 173 W.Va. 164, 313 S.E.2d 440 (1984) (evidence known to defendant before trial does not qualify as newly-discovered)