State of West Virginia v. Alexander Paul Delorenzo

Summary

This document is a dissenting opinion in State of West Virginia v. Alexander Paul Delorenzo, concerning the exclusion of defense expert testimony about the defendant’s Asperger’s Syndrome Disorder and its relevance to his lack-of-intent defense. Justice Wooton argued that excluding the testimony violated the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense and criticized the majority’s approval of the trial court’s admonishments during the defendant’s testimony.

Holdings

1. The dissent would hold that the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding the defense expert's testimony because the testimony was relevant and critical to the defendant's sole lack-of-intent defense, its probative value outweighed any asserted prejudice, and the State had no compelling interest in excluding it.
2. The dissent agreed with the majority that the circuit court's admonishments, standing alone, did not unduly influence the jurors, but criticized the majority's new syllabus point stating that a trial court has a duty to supervise direct and cross-examination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether excluding expert testimony concerning the defendant's Asperger's Syndrome Disorder and related conditions violated his due process right to present a defense.
2. Whether the proposed expert testimony was relevant and admissible to support the defendant's claim that he lacked the intent required by the charged offenses, rather than to establish diminished capacity.
3. Whether the circuit court's admonishments during the defendant's testimony improperly influenced the jury or otherwise deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Disposition

other