State v. Kaufman, 227 W. Va. 537

Kaufman was convicted of first-degree murder in Wood County, WV, based largely on the state of the marriage and pre-death allegations by the victim; the victim’s diary and out-of-court statements were pivotal to the State’s theory, while physical evidence linking Kaufman to the death was weak.
The victim died from a gunshot wound with the time of death between noon and 4:00 p.m. the day before discovery; the manner of death was undetermined by the medical examiner.
Police found the victim’s body in a closet; Appellant claimed he had an alibi and that the Wal-Mart story was fabricated, later admitting the victim discussed cancer and suicide plans.
The State relied heavily on statements the victim allegedly made to her children and her daughter's boyfriend about threats and violence by Kaufman, and on a sixty-three page diary she authored.
The trial court admitted the diary under a broad hearsay approach (Rule 803(24)) and the statements to others under Sutphin; on appeal, the Court found error in the diary admission and remanded for a new trial, with instructions to examine each diary entry separately for admissibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the diary was admissible under the hearsay rules and Confrontation Clause	Kaufman argues the diary was testimonial and violated Confrontation Clause rights	Mechling framework requires reliability or a firmly rooted exception; diary is testimonial or improperly admitted	Diary admission was an abuse of discretion; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial with entry-by-entry analysis
Whether the victim’s statements to others were properly admitted under Sutphin	Statements to Kristy, Zachary, and Jimmy should be admissible under Sutphin	Sutphin criteria not adequately analyzed or explained by the trial court	Admission as Sutphin-based evidence invalid; error requiring reversal (but covered by overall diary reversal)
Effect of diary’s non-testimonial status on admissibility and trial fairness	Diary could be considered non-testimonial under Crawford-Mechling framework	Even if non-testimonial, breakdown required for admissibility under 803(3) and 803(24)	Court requires separate declaration analysis; overall diary ruling reversed

Mechling v. Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 (2006) (Crawford governs testimonial statements; non-testimonial statements require reliability analysis)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements without cross-examination)
State v. Sutphin, 195 W.Va. 551 (1995) (hearsay-within-hearsay admissibility under Rule 805 and exceptions)
State v. James Edward S., 184 W.Va. 408 (1990) (two-part Confrontation analysis; reliability and unavailability)
State v. Mason, 194 W.Va. 221 (1995) (firmly rooted hearsay exception permits reliability inquiry)
State v. Kennedy, 205 W.Va. 224 (1999) (Mechling overruled Kennedy insofar as Roberts-based approach to testimonial statements)