State v. Kennedy
229 W. Va. 756
| W. Va. | 2012Background
- Kennedy was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder for Lashonda Viars and sentenced to life with mercy.
- At trial, autopsy report by Dr. Livingston was admitted over defense objection; Livingston did not testify.
- Dr. Zia Sabet testified with autopsy photos; Kennedy testified that his wife committed the murder.
- Post-Mechling Crawford developments changed Confrontation Clause interpretation, affecting admissibility of testimonial hearsay.
- Kennedy filed a Rule 33 motion for a new trial in August 2010; circuit court denied it.
- West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding Crawford/Mechling are non-retroactive and relief unavailable on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autopsy report and Confrontation Clause | Kennedy argues autopsy report is testimonial and violative of confrontation rights. | State contends autopsy report fits public records; limited Mechling framework applies. | Autopsy report deemed testimonial; error occurred, but relief denied due to retroactivity. |
| Dr. Sabet’s testimony as surrogate | Sabet’s reliance on the autopsy report violated Confrontation Clause. | Sabet’s opinions on non-fatal wounds were independent and cross-examinable; some reliance permissible under Rule 703. | Some surrogate opinions violated Confrontation Clause; standalone independent opinions were permissible. |
| Retroactivity of Crawford/Mechling | Crawford/Mechling should apply retroactively to Kennedy's case. | Crawford/Mechling are new rules not retroactive under Teague/Blake analysis. | Crawford/Mechling are non-retroactive; no relief on collateral review. |
| Direct vs collateral review mechanism | Rule 33 motion could provide direct relief; filing treated as direct appeal due to lapse. | Case was final; review must be collateral habeas, not direct appeal. | Proceedings deemed collateral; no direct-review relief applicable. |
| Remedial scope under retroactivity analysis | Relief warranted to correct Confrontation Clause error. | Retroactive relief would be impracticable and inequitable. | Blake factors justify prospective application; no retroactive remedy for Kennedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. James Edward S., 184 W.Va. 408 (1990) (initial framework for confrontation and unavailability)
- Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (Roberts overruled regarding testimonial hearsay)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay requires confrontation; unavailability and cross-examination)
- Mechling, 219 W.Va. 366 (2006) (adopted Crawford; overruled Kennedy I on Confrontation Clause)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; confrontation required)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate expert cannot substitute for confrontation)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (plurality; limits on primary purpose test and testimonial status)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008) (states may apply retroactivity independently; Teague context)
- State v. Blake, 197 W.Va. 700 (1996) (retroactivity factors for new rules)