State v. Kaufman

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Appellant David Kaufman was convicted of first degree murder in the circuit court. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the victim's diary and certain statements by the victim to others, both of which recounted alleged threats and acts of violence by appellant towards the victim during the weeks preceding her death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) the trial court's admission of the entire diary without an analysis of each declaration and remark from the diary was an abuse of discretion because when ruling upon the admission of a narrative under the hearsay rule of evidence, a trial court must break down the narrative and determine the separate admissibility of each single declaration or remark; and (2) the trial court committed error in admitting certain statements by the victim without setting forth any reasoning in support of its ruling that the victim's statements were admissible under State v. Sutphin. Remanded.

Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2011 Term __________ FILED June 22, 2011 No. 35691 __________ released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. DAVID WAYNE KAUFMAN, Defendant Below, Appellee ______________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wood County Honorable Robert A. Waters, Judge Civil Action No. 08-F-91 REVERSED and REMANDED ____________________________________________________ Submitted: March 30, 2011 Filed: June 22, 2011 Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. Esq. Attorney General Benjamin F. Yancey, III Assistant Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for the Appellee George Cosenza Consenza & Merriman Parkersburg, West Virginia Counsel for the Appellant Justice McHugh delivered the Opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Workman concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.