Expert Nexus Required for Admissibility of Drug-Use Evidence: The New Standard Established in State of West Virginia v. Hundley

Introduction

State of West Virginia v. Scott Michael Andrew Hundley, decided May 14, 2025 by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, clarifies the parameters under which evidence of a victim’s drug use and drug-related behavior may be admitted in support of a self-defense claim. Scott Hundley was convicted of second-degree murder after stabbing Thomas Cekada Jr. in the neck. On appeal, Hundley argued the trial court erred in excluding toxicology results and text messages suggesting Cekada’s drug use and sales—evidence he believed would corroborate his theory that Cekada’s erratic, drug-induced conduct justified Hundley’s resort to force. The Court reviewed evidentiary rulings under an abuse-of-discretion standard, scrutinized the contours of admissibility for self-defense evidence, and reaffirmed longstanding rules on closing argument scope, prosecutorial disclosures, and hearsay exceptions. Ultimately, it affirmed the conviction, establishing a clear requirement that drug-use evidence be tied to the asserted behavioral impact through expert testimony to satisfy relevance.

Background and Key Issues

• Parties: State of West Virginia (Plaintiff-Respondent) vs. Scott Michael Andrew Hundley (Defendant-Petitioner).
• Factual Allegations: On August 7, 2021, Hundley encountered Cekada at a Dollar General parking lot, where Cekada allegedly brandished a firearm. After a subsequent motor‐vehicle collision on Mountain Mission Road, Hundley claimed Cekada again pointed a gun at him. Fearing for his life, Hundley stabbed Cekada in the neck.
• Key Trial Rulings:
  • Pre-trial suppression of evidence: toxicology report and text messages indicating Cekada’s drug use/sales.
  • Admissibility of Hundley’s post‐arrest statements and scope of rebuttal in closing argument.
  • Denial of admission of prior 2016 stabbing under Rule 404(b) after McGinnis hearing.
• Legal Questions on Appeal:
  1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding toxicology results and text messages related to the victim’s drug use and sales?
  2. Did the court improperly allow the State to raise new arguments in rebuttal closing?
  3. Were Hundley’s due process rights violated by alleged prosecutorial misconduct in arresting a defense witness in front of the jury?
  4. Did the State violate Brady by withholding exculpatory evidence concerning a key witness?
  5. Were Hundley’s statements to police wrongfully admitted?

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Justice Walker, unanimously affirmed the trial court. Key holdings include:

• The exclusion of the toxicology report and text messages was not an abuse of discretion. Under Rule 401, the mere presence of controlled substances in the victim’s system or indications of drug transactions cannot, without expert testimony linking those substances to specific behavioral effects, make any fact of consequence more or less probable.
• The State’s rebuttal closing—arguing that Cekada’s firearm could not have been the source of threat since it lacked blood while his hands were bloody—directly responded to Hundley’s self-defense argument and did not exceed permissible scope under Rule 29.1 and the court’s broad discretion over argument.
• Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct (arrest of defense witness in open court) and Brady violations concerning witness disclosures were unsupported by the record and not preserved properly for appeal.
• Hundley’s pre-arrest statement requesting counsel was not introduced at trial; thus, any ruling on its admissibility is moot.
• A prior out-of-court statement proffered to rebut fabrication (Hundley’s confession to police) was inadmissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) unless Hundley testified and submitted to cross-examination.

Finding no reversible error—individually or cumulatively—the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of forty-five years’ imprisonment.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court relied on several foundational West Virginia precedents to guide its review:

• State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W. Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998)
  — Established that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• State v. Byers, 159 W. Va. 596, 224 S.E.2d 726 (1976)
  — Holds that unpreserved errors not apparent on the face of the record will not be considered on appeal.
• State v. Smith, 156 W. Va. 385, 193 S.E.2d 550 (1972)
  — Articulates the cumulative-error doctrine: multiple harmless errors may collectively warrant reversal if they deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• State v. Quinn, 200 W. Va. 432, 490 S.E.2d 34 (1997)
  — Clarifies the scope of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) for prior consistent statements.
• Federal decisions interpreting analogous rules—United States v. Smith (4th Cir. 2020) on the structure of initial and rebuttal closings.

2. Legal Reasoning

Exclusion of Drug-Use Evidence

Under West Virginia Rule 401, evidence must have a tendency to make a fact more or less probable and that fact must be of consequence. The trial court found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that:

• Toxicology Report: Without expert testimony to link the presence and levels of controlled substances to specific behavioral effects, a juror cannot infer that Cekada was impaired or acted irrationally. Interpreting toxicology results—metabolism rates, substance interactions, behavioral impact—is beyond a layperson’s common understanding, unlike blood alcohol levels where jurors commonly appreciate intoxication effects. The court noted it would reconsider if Hundley procured an expert toxicologist; he did not.
• Text Messages: Evidence of drug transactions, unaccompanied by proof that such transactions caused Cekada to brandish a firearm, lacks relevance. The fact that a person sells drugs does not make it more or less probable they will display a gun in a particular encounter absent further context or expert explanation.

Scope of Closing Arguments

Rule 29.1 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure parallels its federal counterpart. While the prosecution “opens” and defense “replies,” the State is not precluded from addressing matters in its rebuttal that directly respond to defense argument. Hundley’s self-defense closing invited the State to counter with forensic pathologist’s photographs showing Cekada’s bloody hands and an unbloodied gun, undermining the claim he brandished the weapon at Hundley. The Court reaffirmed broad trial-court discretion over argument control.

Hearsay & Prior Consistent Statements

Under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement by a testifying witness is non-hearsay only if offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication and if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination. Hundley’s post-arrest statement to police—unsolicited by the State—remained hearsay absent his testimony. The Court thus upheld the trial judge’s ruling barring introduction of the full statement unless Hundley took the stand.

Prosecutorial Disclosures & Brady

Brady v. Maryland imposes a duty to disclose material exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Hundley alleged the State suppressed evidence that a key witness, Rosanna Piper, was a confidential informant with a criminal history. The record contained no factual support or preserved objection. Under Syllabus Point 6 of Byers, errors not preserved or apparent on the record are not considered. The Court declined relief.

3. Impact and Future Significance

State v. Hundley establishes a clear precedential rule in West Virginia:

Evidence of a victim’s drug use or sales is inadmissible on relevance grounds unless the proponent obtains expert testimony linking the presence, levels, or pharmacological effects of controlled substances to the victim’s mental or behavioral state at the time of the alleged offense.

This standard will guide trial judges in future self-defense and character evidence battles, ensuring that jurors are not asked to make undue inferential leaps from raw toxicology data or hearsay drug-transaction records. It also underscores:

• The necessity of advanced planning by defense counsel when seeking to introduce scientific or medical evidence.
• Early engagement of qualified experts to establish the relevance threshold under Rule 401 before trial.
• Trial courts’ responsibility to identify and manage evidentiary gaps that jurors cannot bridge by common knowledge alone.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 401 Relevance: Evidence must (a) make a fact more or less likely and (b) concern something that matters to deciding the case. “Makes more likely” means there is a logical connection; “matters” means it affects who wins.
• Abuse of Discretion: An appellate court defers to the trial judge’s decision unless it was arbitrary, unreasonable, or based on incorrect legal principles.
• Expert Testimony Requirement: When a jury cannot understand scientific or medical data on its own, an expert must explain how that data affects real-world behavior.
• Hearsay vs. Non-Hearsay: Out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth are hearsay and barred unless an exception applies. Prior consistent statements can be used to rebut claims of fabrication—but only if the speaker testifies live in court.
• Brady Rule: The prosecution must hand over any evidence that could help the defense, whether it undermines guilt or bolsters credibility of a witness. But the defense must preserve objections and point to the record if it claims suppression.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in State v. Hundley fortifies the evidentiary gatekeeping function trial courts perform when scientific or technical evidence is put forward. By requiring an expert nexus between toxicology findings (or drug-transaction records) and claimed behavioral effects, the Court protects both the integrity of the self-defense doctrine and the jury’s ability to make informed credibility assessments. This new standard will shape criminal defense practice in West Virginia, compelling earlier expert engagement and more robust pre-trial evidentiary planning, while offering appellate courts a clear rubric for reviewing exclusionary rulings.

Ultimately, Hundley reaffirms that not every potentially exculpatory nugget of data warrants admission—unless it can be tied, through reliable expert explanation, to a fact that truly matters to the outcome.