Camm v. State

908 N.E.2d 215 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D eventually faced a third trial and second retrial for allegedly shooting and killing his wife, seven-year-old son, and five-year-old daughter at the family home in Georgetown. In the prior two trials, (the one in the case book is the second one) D was convicted of all three murders, but the convictions were overturned on appeal. D's second trial began on January 16, 2006. Forensic evidence, expert testimony, and circumstantial evidence pointed to D as the perpetrator, as well as D's alleged confession to three inmates. There was new evidence regarding Boney as a co-conspirator, and more evidence regarding D's alleged molestation of his daughter. P's theory was that D had molested his daughter, the daughter either had reported or would report the abuse to her mother, and D killed his family to conceal the molestation. P introduced autopsy evidence revealing blunt force trauma to the daughter's external genital region and expert testimony opining that the daughter had been sexually molested within the twenty-four hours preceding her death. D maintained that Boney was the sole perpetrator. D offered evidence of Boney's prior assaults on women and sexual compulsion for feet, his alleged reputation for dishonesty, his failed stipulated polygraph test, and certain inculpatory out-of-court statements. The trial court excluded all of this evidence. The defense also presented testimony that supported D's alibi that he had been playing basketball at the time of the killings and which attacked P's experts' analysis of the bloodstain patterns on D's clothing. During this trial, the court allowed D's wife's friend, Cindy Mattingly, to testify concerning an out-of-court statement made by his wife. On the day of the murders, the two women spoke during their daughters' dance class. And 'during a normal, everyday-type conversation about how busy life was, and in response to [her friend's] statement as to when she expected her husband home.' D's wife told the friend that 'she was expecting her husband home between 7:00 and 7:30, around that time.' This testimony was received at trial over D's hearsay objection. D was once again convicted and appealed in part on the admission of Mattingly’s statement.