Friday, June 27, 2008
In February, I did a post about the appeal of Willard McCarley, who successfully argued that the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine did not apply to statements made by his alleged murder victim. Despite the fact that McCarley won this argument, he lost his appeal as the Court of Appeals of Ohio found that the trial court's error in admitting the victim's statements was harmless error. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to revisit the McCarley case as an example of how the Supreme Court's opinion in Giles could be read to allow statements such as the statements of the victim in McCarley's case under the Court's seeming approval of a "transferred intent" theory of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine.
That post led me to wonder whether McCarley appealed this ruling, and, oddly enough, I found this story from yesterday, indicating that the Supreme Court of Ohio just denied McCarley's appeal, finding that the appeal did not raise any "substantial" points that would have caused a reason for approval of the review.