Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The petitioner, David Hunter Lewis, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia, of second-degree murder and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The incident occurred on December 15, 2020, when the petitioner shot the victim, Dylan Harr, after an argument at an apartment. The petitioner claimed the shooting was accidental, while the State argued it was intentional. The petitioner was sentenced to concurrent forty- and ten-year terms of imprisonment.In the lower court, the petitioner moved to suppress statements made to police, arguing they were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The circuit court ruled that statements made after the petitioner signed a waiver of rights at the police station were admissible, despite his earlier invocation of the right to remain silent at the time of his arrest. The petitioner also filed post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of character evidence about the victim, which the circuit court denied.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the State's introduction of extensive character evidence about the victim, which was irrelevant to the petitioner's guilt or innocence, constituted plain error. The court held that this error affected the petitioner's substantial rights and seriously impacted the fairness of the trial. The court also addressed the admissibility of the petitioner's statements to police, concluding that the circuit court did not err in admitting the statements made after the petitioner signed a waiver of rights at the police station. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the petitioner's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In this child abuse and neglect case, the mother, A.L., challenged the circuit court’s failure to rule on her motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and the subsequent termination of her parental rights to her four children. She also appealed the denial of post-termination visitation. The case involved prior incidents where Child Protective Services (CPS) intervened due to lack of supervision, including two separate incidents where her children were injured by firearms. Despite services provided by the Department of Human Services (DHS), the mother failed to comply consistently, leading to the filing of a new petition in August 2021 after another gunshot incident involving her child.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County adjudicated the mother as an abusing and neglectful parent and terminated her parental rights. The mother appealed, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated the initial dispositional order due to insufficient findings and remanded for a new order addressing the improvement period and providing detailed findings. On remand, the circuit court again terminated her parental rights, citing her failure to rectify the conditions of abuse and neglect despite extensive DHS involvement and services.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of parental rights, finding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion given the mother’s history of non-compliance and the recurring issues of lack of supervision. However, the court vacated the denial of post-termination visitation, noting that the circuit court failed to consider the children’s best interests and the potential emotional bond with the mother. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether post-termination visitation would be in the best interests of the children. View "In re Z.D.-1" on Justia Law

Andrew Miller was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia, of wanton endangerment, malicious wounding, and felony possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The jury also found him to be a recidivist felon, leading to a life sentence with the possibility of parole. The case arose from an incident where Miller allegedly shot Anthony Goard during a dispute over drugs at Niesha Dotson’s apartment. Miller claimed that another individual, J.T., was the actual shooter.At trial, the State presented testimony from Dotson and Goard, both of whom had used drugs at the time of the incident. Dotson testified about a disagreement over drugs between her and Miller, while Goard identified Miller as the shooter but initially told hospital staff he did not know who shot him. The State also introduced a 9 millimeter firearm with Miller’s DNA, although Goard identified a different firearm as the one used in the shooting. Miller testified in his defense, asserting that J.T. shot Goard and that he left the scene to avoid being implicated due to his parole status.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case, focusing on Miller’s claim that his constitutional right to silence was violated. The court found that the circuit court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine Miller about his post-arrest silence, which was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that this improper questioning directly prejudiced Miller’s defense, as it suggested to the jury that Miller fabricated his story about J.T. being the shooter.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated Miller’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the constitutional error was not harmless and affected the jury’s verdict. View "State of West Virginia v. Miller" on Justia Law

Brittany Foster, a licensed practical nurse working at the Southern Regional Jail, claimed she contracted COVID-19 due to workplace exposure. She was hospitalized for fifteen days and later suffered from heart- and lung-related conditions. Foster's claim was initially denied by the Claim Administrator. She appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, which found her claim compensable based on her exposure to COVID-19 at work. PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc. disputed this, arguing that Foster could have contracted the virus outside of work and presented a medical study suggesting health care workers were not at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 at work.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing the medical study's findings and stating that Foster failed to prove health care workers were at higher risk of workplace exposure. The ICA directed the Board to perform a detailed analysis of the six factors outlined in West Virginia Code section 23-4-1(f). On remand, the Board reaffirmed its decision, but the ICA again reversed, focusing on the study's conclusion that health care workers were not at increased risk.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found the ICA's reliance on the study misplaced. The Court held that statistical evidence of workplace-related risk is relevant but not dispositive in determining compensability. The Court emphasized that a workers’ compensation claim for COVID-19 can be compensable if a preponderance of the evidence shows the disease was contracted in the course of employment. The Court reversed the ICA's decision and remanded the case with directions to reinstate the Board's decision. View "Foster v. Primecare Medical of West Virginia, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves the Huntington Sanitary Board (HSB) challenging an order by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC) that designated HSB as the most suitable capable proximate utility (CPU) to acquire and operate the failing sewer system of the Hubbard Heights subdivision in Wayne County. The sewer system, originally servicing 27 customers, had fallen into disrepair and ceased operations, posing health and environmental risks. The PSC's order was issued under the Distressed and Failing Utilities Act, which aims to remediate struggling utilities.The PSC initiated proceedings after a petition was filed by a former president of the Hubbard Heights Homeowners Association (HOA). The PSC found that the sewer system met the statutory definition of a failing utility and considered various alternatives to acquisition, ultimately determining that acquisition by a CPU was necessary. HSB, along with other utilities, was identified as a potential CPU. The PSC held public and evidentiary hearings, during which no utility expressed willingness to acquire Hubbard Heights. The PSC designated HSB as the most suitable CPU based on its size, financial capacity, and proximity.HSB appealed, arguing that the PSC lacked jurisdiction because the customer count had fallen below the statutory threshold of 25 and that the PSC failed to consider alternatives to acquisition adequately. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case, affirming the PSC's order. The court held that the PSC had continuing jurisdiction over Hubbard Heights despite the reduced customer count, as the utility had not sought to be divested of its status, and the PSC had not relinquished jurisdiction. The court also found that the PSC had considered alternatives and provided a reasoned analysis in designating HSB as the most suitable CPU, complying with the statutory requirements. View "Huntington Sanitary Board v. Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

Gauley River Public Service District (Gauley River) experienced multiple interruptions in water service to the Mount Olive Correctional Complex (Mt. Olive) over a three-month period. This led the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (Commission) to investigate whether Gauley River was a distressed or failing utility under the Distressed and Failing Utilities Improvement Act. The Commission found Gauley River to be a distressed utility due to its prolonged lack of adequate management and operational deficiencies.The Commission ordered Gauley River to negotiate an operation and maintenance agreement with West Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC) to provide oversight and managerial control. Gauley River and WVAWC submitted a proposed agreement, but the Commission rejected it, finding it did not meet the required terms. The Commission then ordered the parties to execute a standard operation and maintenance agreement structured by the Commission.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court held that the Commission acted within its statutory authority under West Virginia Code § 24-2H-7(b) in ordering Gauley River and WVAWC to implement an alternative to acquisition. The court found that the ordered agreement did not amount to an acquisition of Gauley River by WVAWC but was designed to remediate the utility's deficiencies. The court affirmed the Commission's order, concluding that the terms of the agreement were lawful and necessary to address Gauley River's operational issues. View "Gauley River Public Service District v. Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves Chad M. Eldredge, who was convicted of one count of second-degree sexual assault against his stepdaughter, G.Y., and sentenced to ten to twenty-five years in prison. G.Y. alleged multiple instances of sexual assault by Eldredge, which occurred when she was between twelve and seventeen years old. The allegations included inappropriate touching, oral sex, and the use of a sex toy. Eldredge denied all allegations, claiming they were fabricated by G.Y. as retribution for his criticism of her boyfriend and her mother's refusal to let the boyfriend move in.The Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia, initially reviewed the case. During the trial, the court allowed the State to question R.E., G.Y.'s mother, about pending fraud charges related to her use of her sister's credit card to fund Eldredge's jail account. The court also questioned R.E. about her decision to give vibrators to G.Y., which R.E. claimed was to prevent G.Y. from engaging in sexual activities with boys. Eldredge was acquitted of fourteen other counts, including additional charges of sexual assault, sexual abuse by a parent or guardian, and incest.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred by allowing questioning about R.E.'s pending criminal charges, which violated West Virginia Rule of Evidence 609, and by questioning R.E. in a manner that prejudiced her credibility, violating Rule 614(b). The Supreme Court of Appeals held that these errors were not harmless, as they impacted the credibility of a crucial defense witness and the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court reversed Eldredge's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Eldredge" on Justia Law

Monica Hartwell was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Michael Walker on her front porch. On the day of the incident, Walker, who had mental health issues, was loudly ranting on the porch. Hartwell apologized to her neighbors for the disturbance and returned home. Shortly after, a gunshot was heard, and Walker was found dead on the porch. Hartwell had gone inside the house and remained there until police arrived. Upon her arrest, Trooper Weikle asked her, "where's the gun?" to which she responded, "it's on the couch."The Circuit Court of Mercer County denied Hartwell's motion to suppress her statement to Trooper Weikle, ruling it admissible as routine, on-the-scene questioning for officer safety. Hartwell was subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to forty years in prison. She appealed, arguing that her statement was inadmissible because it was made during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and was also inadmissible hearsay.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that Hartwell was in custody when questioned but found that the public safety exception to Miranda applied. The court held that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to public safety outweighs the need for Miranda warnings. The court determined that Trooper Weikle's question was necessary to secure officer and public safety, given the immediate need to locate the weapon. The court also rejected Hartwell's hearsay argument, noting that her statement was admissible as an admission of a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "State v. Hartwell" on Justia Law

Lawrence Davonn Foye was placed on court-supervised parole after being convicted of fleeing in a vehicle with reckless indifference. His parole conditions included not violating any laws, avoiding disreputable persons, and abstaining from drug use. In January 2023, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his parole, alleging three violations: using marijuana, being charged with first-degree murder, and associating with a disreputable person. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County revoked his parole and imposed the underlying sentence.The Circuit Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the parole violations. Detective Adkins testified about the murder investigation, corroborating information from a cooperating witness with cell phone data and video footage. The court also noted that Foye did not contest the allegations of drug use and associating with a disreputable person. The court applied the "reasonable cause" standard from West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) to revoke Foye's parole.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The court clarified that the standard of proof for a final parole or probation revocation hearing under West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that the State met this standard by presenting sufficient evidence of all three parole violations. The court also addressed the procedural due process requirements, ensuring that Foye's rights were protected during the revocation process. View "State v. Foye" on Justia Law

Marietta Area Healthcare, Inc., Marietta Memorial Hospital, and Marietta Healthcare Physicians, Inc. (collectively "Marietta") filed a lawsuit against Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation, Camden-Clark Health Services, Inc., West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc., and West Virginia United Health System, Inc. (collectively "Camden-Clark"). Marietta alleged that Camden-Clark attempted to economically disadvantage them by causing its agents and employees to initiate and pursue a spurious qui tam action against Marietta. The claims included malicious prosecution, tortious interference, abuse of process, fraudulent legal process, civil conspiracy, negligent supervision, aiding and abetting tortious conduct, and vicarious liability.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia reviewed the case and denied Camden-Clark's motion to dismiss seven of the eight claims. However, the court deferred ruling on the negligent supervision claim, noting that the law regarding negligent supervision in West Virginia was unsettled. The district court then certified three questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia regarding the viability and elements of a negligent supervision claim and whether intentional or reckless torts by an employee could form the basis for such a claim.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that a claim for negligent supervision is viable under West Virginia common law. The court clarified that the elements of a negligent supervision claim include the traditional elements of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—along with the necessity of demonstrating a tortious act or omission by the employee. The court further held that an employer could be liable for negligent supervision regardless of whether the employee's conduct was negligent, reckless, or intentional, provided the elements of the claim are met. View "Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Marietta Area Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law