State of West Virginia v. Edward C. (West Virginia 2020)

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s resentencing order, holding that the child‑advocacy interview was admissible under the medical diagnosis and treatment hearsay exception, that the failure to object to a Rule 403 exclusion barred appellate review, and that West Virginia Code § 61‑8D‑5 does not violate the defendant’s due‑process rights. The court reasoned that the interview was conducted for treatment purposes, that procedural defaults preclude review of the Rule 403 issue, and that the statute is a distinct offense consistent with legislative intent.

Holding

Whether the CAC interview of the child was admissible under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 803(4) for medical diagnosis or treatment.. The interview was admissible because the child’s motive was consistent with treatment and the content was reasonably relied upon by a physician.

Whether the circuit court’s failure to rule on a Rule 403 objection bars appellate review of that issue.. The appellate court will not consider the Rule 403 argument because the petitioner failed to object at trial.

Whether West Virginia Code § 61‑8D‑5 violates due‑process or the right to an impartial jury.. The statute is constitutional; it creates a separate and distinct offense and does not deprive the defendant of due process.