State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. Jeffrey Allan Pettrey, Defendant Below, Appellant (West Virginia 2001)

Summary

The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the children's statements were properly admitted either as nonhearsay to explain the teacher's report or under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception when made during therapeutic play therapy. It also upheld the trial court's refusal to order competency evaluations and concluded that the properly admitted evidence was sufficient to support the remaining convictions. Justice Starcher, joined by Justice Albright, concurred in the judgment but rejected the majority's use of the medical-treatment exception and its characterization of play therapy.

Holding

Teacher's testimony about the child's statements. The child's statements to the teacher were not hearsay because they were admitted to explain why the teacher reported the child's behavior and referred the child for treatment, not to prove the truth of the abuse allegations. Their admission therefore did not implicate the confrontation right.

Counselor's testimony and the Confrontation Clause. The children's statements to the counselor were admissible under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception because the children were brought for therapeutic treatment rather than investigation, their statements were made in a therapeutic context, and the counselor reasonably relied on them in diagnosis and treatment. The statements therefore possessed the reliability required for admission and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Admission of play-therapy evidence. When a social worker, counselor, or psychologist trained in play therapy treats a child-abuse victim, testimony about the child's statements is admissible under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception if the child's motive is consistent with promoting treatment and the therapist reasonably relies on the statements for treatment. The evidence is inadmissible when gathered strictly for investigative or forensic purposes.

Competency evaluations and questioning of the child victims. The circuit court did not plainly abuse its discretion by denying the requested competency evaluations and declining to bring the children into court for questioning.

Sufficiency of the evidence and request for acquittal or new trial. The evidence was sufficient to support each of the nine remaining convictions, so the appellant was not entitled to acquittal or a new trial.

State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. Jeffrey Allan Pettrey, Defendant Below, Appellant

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by