Hutchinson v. Ballard
| Decision Date | 09 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:14-cv-14975 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | WILLARD DAVID HUTCHINSON, Petitioner, v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex Respondent. |
Pending before the Court are Petitioner Willard David Hutchinson's ("Hutchinson") pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (ECF No. 2), and Respondent's Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 21).1 This case is assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Chambers, United States District Judge, and by standing order is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). As a preliminary matter, the undersigned notes that the record before the Court is well-developed and provides a sufficient basis upon which to resolve this case without need for an evidentiary hearing. See Rule 8, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
After thorough consideration of the record, the undersigned conclusively FINDS that (1) there are no material factual issues in dispute and (2) Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT Respondent's Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment; DENY Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and DISMISS this case from the docket of the court.
On May 14, 2001, Hutchinson was indicted by a Cabell County grand jury for the murder of Linda Rigney and the malicious wounding of Ms. Rigney's daughter, Jessica Ford. (ECF No. 10-1 at 2). Hutchinson was alleged to have stabbed both with a knife on February 9, 2001. (Id.) Prior to trial, the state trial court ordered that Hutchinson undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he was unable, "by virtue of mental incapacity or addiction to drugs or alcohol," to assist his attorneys' preparation of a defense and whether, on the date of the alleged crimes, he was "suffering from mental disease or defect or alcohol addiction to the extent that he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." (ECF No. 10-1 at 19-20). Dr. Deleno H. Webb, III, a physician with a specialty in psychiatry and a board certification in forensic psychiatry, performed the evaluation. (ECF No. 10-2 at 71). Dr. Webb had some familiarity with Hutchinson because he had previously performed a competency evaluation of Hutchinson in 1999. (Id. at 72).
Dr. Webb testified at Hutchinson's competency hearing that, after reviewing records provided by Hutchinson's counsel and the trial court and after performing aninterview and psychological testing with Hutchinson, he concluded Hutchinson exhibited symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. (Id.) Dr. Webb reported that Hutchinson suffered from persecutory and grandiose delusions and that Hutchinson was preoccupied with developing "some sort of important theories regarding the speed of light." (Id.) Dr. Webb also observed that Hutchinson used words that only had meaning to him, which is known as neologism. (Id.) Nevertheless, Dr. Webb opined that in spite of his mental illness, Hutchinson was "quite capable" of aiding his attorneys and that he possessed a "reasonable degree of rational understanding of the proceedings against him." (Id.) Dr. Webb also testified that, although "there was no way to assess with 100 percent certainty what [Hutchinson's] mental condition was at the time of the crime," Hutchinson could appreciate the criminality of his conduct at that time. (Id.) In support of his opinion, Dr. Webb stated that he saw no evidence that would lead him to believe that Hutchinson was delusional at the time of the crimes. (Id. at 72-73). Dr. Webb relayed that Hutchinson did not report during the evaluation that he was suffering from any delusion at the time of the crimes. (Id. at 73). In addition, Dr. Webb stated that Hutchinson recalled many specific facts about the night of the crimes in a prior report. (Id. at 76-77). On the subject of intoxication, Dr. Webb noted that Hutchinson had a blood alcohol content of 0.15 when he was tested four hours after the crimes. (Id. at 76). Dr. Webb concluded that this could mean Hutchinson was "pretty intoxicated" at the time of the crimes; however, Dr. Webb pointed out that Hutchinson possessed "an extremely high tolerance" for alcohol given his history of alcohol abuse and that Hutchinson became intoxicated "of his own volition" on the day of the crimes. (Id. at 72-73, 75-76).
Hutchinson's mother, Barbara Hutchinson, also testified at the competency hearing. Ms. Hutchinson described her son as paranoid and as an alcoholic. (Id. at 77). She stated that Hutchinson talks to himself, believes he's developing important scientific theories, and uses words that only have meaning to him. (Id. at 78). Ms. Hutchinson also stated that her son did not believe Ms. Rigney was dead. (Id.) Finally, Hutchinson's counsel, John Laishley, proffered to the trial court that Hutchinson had not been assisting in his own defense and that the information Mr. Laishley knew about the case came directly from the prosecution, the police, and the discovery obtained by defense counsel. (Id.) At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Hutchinson was competent to assist counsel and stand trial, and that Hutchinson was competent at the time of the alleged crimes. (Id.) The court entered a written order finding the same on September 19, 2001. (ECF No. 10-1 at 23-24).
Prior to trial, the state trial court also held a hearing on the admissibility of "other acts" evidence, typically referred to as 404(b) evidence. During that hearing, the prosecution moved for the admission at trial of testimony regarding two other violent encounters between Hutchinson and the victims. Jessica Ford testified that in December 2000, she observed Hutchinson punching Ms. Rigney in the face in the kitchen of the home that they shared. (ECF No. 10-2 at 99-100). Jessica stated that Ms. Rigney suffered a "busted" lip, black eye, and broken nose as a result of Hutchinson's assault. (Id. at 100). During the same incident, Jessica witnessed Hutchinson grab Ms. Rigney by the hair while holding a knife in his hand. (Id. at 99). Approximately fifteen minutes after the assault, Ms. Rigney, who was visibly upset and crying, told Jessica that Hutchinson had threatened her with the knife. (Id. at 101-04). Jessica also testified about a second incident that occurred in January 2001, again at the Rigney/Hutchinsonresidence. (Id. at 104). According to Jessica, Ms. Rigney and Hutchinson were arguing in Jessica's presence over a child support check, and Hutchinson pushed Jessica. (Id. at 106-07). Hutchinson later pled guilty to a domestic battery charge arising out of that incident. (Id. at 116-17). At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that evidence of both incidents would be admissible at trial to establish Hutchinson's motive and intent on the night of the crimes as well as to "give the jury a complete picture of what life was like in th[e] household." (Id. at 121). In a subsequent written order, the trial court found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and reiterated that the evidence could only be introduced at trial for "the limited purpose of completing the story in this case and on the issues of motive and intent." (ECF No. 10-1 at 29).
Hutchinson's trial began on September 4, 2001. (ECF No. 10-3 at 2). During jury selection, a number of jurors stated that they knew witnesses that the prosecution might call. As relevant to Hutchinson's claims, jurors Frances Heck and Diana Millne both stated during voir dire that they knew former Huntington Police Department ("HPD") Detective Tim Murphy. (Id. at 31, 33). Both jurors asserted that they could evaluate former Detective Murphy's testimony in a fair and impartial manner. (Id.) Ms. Millne also stated that she knew HPD Officer Steve Zickefoose, but again affirmed that she could weigh the officer's testimony fairly and impartially. (Id. at 31). Shortly after the jury was seated and trial began, Ms. Heck realized that she knew two more potential prosecution witnesses: Kathy Samples and Anthony Jenkins.2 (Id. at 126). During additional voir dire outside of the presence of the other jurors, Ms. Heck stated that shecould evaluate both witnesses' testimony as if she did not know them and that she would not be likely to believe their testimony based on her relationships with them. (Id. at 127-30). Defense counsel did not object to Ms. Heck remaining on the jury. (Id. at 131).
The prosecution's first witness was HPD Officer Stephen Compton. Officer Compton testified that he first interacted with Hutchinson at 4:19 p.m. on February 9, 2001, when he was dispatched on a "check welfare call" for "two juvenile females" to the home where Ms. Rigney, her children, and Hutchinson lived. (ECF No. 10-3 at 83). Officer Compton recalled that Hutchinson answered the door and answered various questions that he was asked. (Id. at 85-86). Officer Compton observed that Hutchinson appeared to be "under the influence." (Id. at 114). Hutchinson then consented to Officer Compton searching the home. (Id. at 86). After not finding anyone else in the home, Officer Compton departed. (Id. at 86-87).
Later that day, at 5:54 p.m., Officer Compton was dispatched to the home for a domestic disturbance. (Id. at 87). While en route to the home, Officer Compton was informed that a stabbing had occurred there. (Id. at 88). Upon arriving at the home, Officer Compton noticed a number of people in the street and heard one of those people say that...
To continue reading
Request your trial