State of West Virginia v. Richard Wakefield

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed Richard Wakefield’s convictions for two counts each of second- and third-degree sexual assault. The court addressed the admissibility of expert testimony concerning GHB intoxication under Daubert and Wilt, the exclusion of evidence under the rape shield law, double jeopardy, and an alleged confrontation-clause violation involving a bailiff and juror. Justice Ketchum dissented and reserved the right to file a dissenting opinion.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Trinka Porrata's expert testimony concerning GHB intoxication and drug-facilitated sexual assault.
2. The circuit court did not improperly preclude Wakefield from cross-examining Carper about events in the vehicle; in any event, Wakefield failed to preserve the specific claim because he did not make a proffer of the excluded questions.
3. Convictions for both second-degree and third-degree sexual assault were not barred by double jeopardy because, as charged in this case, each offense required proof of a fact that the other did not.
4. The court declined to consider Wakefield's claim that a bailiff's conversation with a juror violated the Confrontation Clause because Wakefield neither objected nor moved for a mistrial and expressly agreed at trial that the matter was not an issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony concerning GHB intoxication under Daubert, Wilt, and West Virginia Rule of Evidence 702.
2. Whether the circuit court improperly restricted Wakefield's cross-examination of Billy Carper concerning events in the vehicle immediately before P.L. entered the house.
3. Whether permitting convictions for both second-degree and third-degree sexual assault based on the same conduct violated double-jeopardy principles.
4. Whether a conversation between a bailiff and a juror about a potential witness violated Wakefield's confrontation rights and warranted appellate relief despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection.

Disposition

affirmed