Supreme Court of Virginia Finds Harmless Error Applies to Exclusion of Expert Testimony
Shaw v. Commonwealth, Record No. 240212 (Va. Apr. 17, 2025)
The Supreme Court of Virginia releases one opinion today in which it finds that harmless error applies to a trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony.
Roscoe James Shaw’s partner James Fisher died in their home. His cause of death was unknown, but the body stayed in the home for the next three days before police discovered it. During this period, Shaw wrapped the body, cleaned the apartment, kept the air conditioning very cold to preserve the body, and communicated with others about moving “furniture” out of the home. When police came to Shaw’s apartment, he lied about Fisher’s whereabouts, telling them that Fisher was in the hospital. Police later found the body in the apartment covered in clothes and a blanket and wrapped in a duct-taped shower curtain. Shaw was charged with concealing a dead body.
At trial, Shaw tried to introduce the expert testimony of Dr. Sara Boyd that his mental conditions of PTSD and depression at the time of the offense showed that he lacked the requisite intent to commit the crime. The trial court excluded Dr. Boyd’s testimony as speculative. A jury convicted Shaw. He appealed the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed.
Today, the Supreme Court of Virginia also affirms, but for different reasons. Rather than rule on whether the trial court rightly excluded Dr. Boyd’s testimony, it concluded that even if the exclusion was improper, it was harmless error. The Court noted significant issues with Dr. Boyd’s potential testimony. Her opinions were inconsistent between her report and hearing testimony. She admitted that the effects of Shaw’s mental illnesses were not constant during the three-day period. She was unaware of key facts when forming her initial opinions. More significantly, though, the Court found that Shaw’s own words and actions decisively showed that he had the requisite intent. He coded his communications, referring to the body as “furniture.” He communicated with two people about the concealment. He cleaned his apartment and preserved the body. And he texted his mother acknowledging that he was avoiding prison and worried about a probation violation. The Court concluded that even if Dr. Boyd had testified, a reasonable jury still would have convicted Shaw.