Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A group of individuals, including the petitioner, became involved in a series of drug-related activities centered around a home in Parkersburg, West Virginia. After the petitioner purchased drugs from Tiffany McCune, he became dissatisfied with their quality, leading to several confrontations and exchanges between the parties. The situation escalated when the petitioner returned to the McCune home, forcibly entered, and assaulted Tiffany with a pistol. During the ensuing chaos, Darren Salaam Sr., who was present in the house, was shot in the back and later died from his wounds. The petitioner fled the scene but was later apprehended. Upon arrest, he made racially charged statements, and photographs taken at booking displayed his swastika and Aryan Brotherhood tattoos.The Circuit Court of Wood County presided over the petitioner’s jury trial. The jury convicted him of felony murder, finding that the underlying felony was burglary. The petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. During the trial, the court admitted evidence of the petitioner’s tattoos and statements, as well as Tiffany McCune’s statements to police and a 9-1-1 call, over the petitioner’s objections on various evidentiary and constitutional grounds. The petitioner’s post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial—primarily challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the burglary element—were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and the constitutional claims de novo. The court held that the tattoo evidence was relevant to motive and not unfairly prejudicial, Tiffany’s statements were admissible as excited utterances and not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause, and the evidence was sufficient to support the felony murder conviction. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

A young child, X.R., was left in the care of her maternal aunt, H.R., after her mother, J.R., struggled with substance abuse. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) initiated abuse and neglect proceedings that led to the termination of J.R.’s parental rights. During these proceedings, R.S. was identified as X.R.’s biological father. R.S. was adjudicated as an abusing parent due to lack of appropriate housing, but he successfully completed a court-ordered improvement period, demonstrating his ability to provide a stable environment. H.R. was recognized as X.R.’s psychological parent, having cared for her since birth.Following R.S.'s improvement period, the Circuit Court of Mason County ordered a parenting plan allocating equal custody and decision-making authority over X.R. to both R.S. and H.R., and dismissed the case. R.S. appealed, arguing that the plan violated his fundamental rights as a fit natural parent.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and determined that, because R.S. had completed his improvement period and was not found to be unfit at the time of the final order, his parental rights were intact and paramount. The court found that the circuit court erred in granting H.R. equal custody and decision-making authority based solely on the child’s best interests, without a finding of parental unfitness or other justification that would overcome the natural parent’s rights.Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the parenting plan granting equal custody and decision-making to H.R., vacated the remainder of the plan and the dismissal order, and remanded the case with instructions. The circuit court was directed to determine the scope of continued association between X.R. and H.R., giving special weight to the father’s preferences while also considering the child’s best interests. View "In re X.R." on Justia Law

Two children, R.D. and S.D., were the subject of a dependency and neglect case initiated in Tennessee in 2019 due to their mother’s substance abuse and their father’s incarceration for assaulting the mother. The Tennessee court placed the children with their maternal grandmother, then later with their aunt and uncle, T.V. and R.V., in West Virginia after the grandmother’s death. In February 2022, the Tennessee court granted T.V. and R.V. full legal and physical custody but did not terminate the parents’ rights. T.V. and R.V. subsequently petitioned for adoption in West Virginia, mistakenly asserting that parental rights had been terminated.The Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, granted the adoption petitions in June 2022, believing the Tennessee court had terminated parental rights. The Tennessee court later clarified that it had not done so and transferred jurisdiction to the West Virginia court in April 2023. The circuit court consolidated all related proceedings, and various motions followed, including amended adoption petitions and requests to terminate parental rights. In June 2024, the circuit court upheld the prior adoption orders and, alternatively, modified the Tennessee disposition to terminate the father’s parental rights.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to make custody determinations or terminate parental rights in June 2022, rendering those adoption orders void. However, the court affirmed the circuit court’s later modification of disposition and termination of parental rights after jurisdiction was properly transferred from Tennessee. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "In re R.D. and S.D." on Justia Law

A hospital operating in Weston, West Virginia, sought to construct a new facility approximately four miles from its current location, at a cost of about $56 million. The hospital’s current site is about sixteen miles from another hospital in Buckhannon, which holds a critical access hospital (CAH) designation, allowing it to receive higher Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. The Buckhannon hospital argued that the construction of the new facility within twelve mountainous miles of its own would jeopardize its CAH status and financial stability.Previously, the West Virginia Health Care Authority denied the Weston hospital’s application for a certificate of need, finding that the project would harm the Buckhannon hospital and was not a superior alternative under state law. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this denial. However, after legislative amendments in 2023 raised the capital expenditure threshold for certificate of need requirements to $100 million, the Weston hospital requested a determination from the Authority as to whether its new project required such a certificate. The Authority, applying an unwritten guideline, concluded that a certificate of need was unnecessary for the relocation of an existing facility within the same service area if the cost was below the new threshold. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding the relevant statute ambiguous and deferring to the Authority’s interpretation.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and held that the statutory language requiring a certificate of need for the “construction . . . of a health care facility” is clear and unambiguous. The court determined that the construction of a new hospital building, even as a relocation, falls within this requirement, regardless of the capital expenditure amount. The court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case to the Authority for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation. View "St. Joseph's Hospital of Buckhannon v. Stonewall Jackson Memorial Hospital Co." on Justia Law

A mother was the subject of an abuse and neglect petition filed by the Department of Human Services in February 2020, alleging that her long-standing substance abuse and incidents of domestic violence prevented her from properly parenting her child, R.B. At adjudication, she stipulated to her substance abuse issues, and the Circuit Court of Kanawha County found her to be an abusing and neglecting parent. After multiple unsuccessful improvement periods, the court terminated her custodial rights in April 2021, placing R.B. in a legal guardianship. The mother did not appeal this order.In early 2023, R.B.’s legal guardian became gravely ill and died. The mother moved to modify the dispositional order, seeking reinstatement of her rights, claiming she had completed rehabilitation and maintained sobriety. The Department also moved for modification, seeking custody of R.B. After investigation, the court found the mother had relapsed and failed to comply with drug testing and other requirements. R.B. was placed with relatives, and the mother continued to struggle with substance abuse, testing positive for methamphetamine in February 2024. The Department then moved to terminate her parental rights.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case, applying an abuse of discretion standard to the circuit court’s order and a clearly erroneous standard to its factual findings. The court held that the death of the guardian constituted a material change in circumstances and that termination of parental rights was in R.B.’s best interests, given the mother’s ongoing substance abuse and inability to provide a stable environment. The court affirmed the circuit court’s order modifying disposition and terminating the mother’s parental rights. View "In re R.B." on Justia Law

A two-year-old child, M.B., was placed with foster parents who are members of an Old Order Amish community shortly after his birth. The foster parents had previously adopted M.B.’s three biological sisters, who also reside in their home. Concerns were raised by M.B.’s guardian ad litem regarding the suitability of this placement, primarily because the Amish foster parents would limit M.B.’s formal education to eighth grade, consistent with their religious beliefs. Additional concerns included the lack of regular pediatric care, limited vaccination, restricted exposure to technology, and the potential for racial non-acceptance within the Amish community, as M.B. is biracial.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County reviewed a motion by the guardian ad litem to remove M.B. from the foster home. The court considered evidence and testimony, including the foster father’s statements about education, medical care, and community acceptance. The court also reviewed a special commissioner’s report, which acknowledged the loving and stable environment provided by the foster parents but noted potential limitations related to education, healthcare, and cultural exposure. Ultimately, the circuit court denied the motion to remove M.B., finding that the foster home was stable, loving, and in the child’s best interests, and that the court could not discriminate against the family based on religion or lifestyle.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the Foster Child Bill of Rights does not mandate removal from a placement solely because one or more statutory rights may be limited, but instead requires a best-interest-of-the-child analysis considering all relevant factors. The court found that the circuit court’s findings were supported by the record and that M.B.’s placement with the Amish foster parents did not violate his statutory or constitutional rights. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

The petitioner was indicted in Randolph County, West Virginia, on three charges: possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (a felony), carrying a deadly weapon (a misdemeanor), and improper registration (a misdemeanor). To resolve these charges, the petitioner and the State entered into a plea agreement. Under its terms, the petitioner agreed to plead guilty to the drug and registration charges, while the State agreed to dismiss the deadly weapon charge. Importantly, prosecution of the drug charge was deferred for twenty-four months under a pretrial diversion agreement; if the petitioner successfully completed the diversionary period and complied with all conditions, the drug charge would be dismissed. The petitioner did so, and the circuit court dismissed the drug charge with prejudice.Afterward, the petitioner sought to expunge all records related to the dismissed drug charge under West Virginia Code § 61-11-25(a) (2012). The Circuit Court of Randolph County denied the petition, finding that the drug charge was dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea to another offense, making the petitioner ineligible for expungement under the statute. The petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which affirmed the circuit court’s decision, concluding that the dismissal of the drug charge was part of the same exchange as the guilty plea and thus barred expungement.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case for abuse of discretion and interpreted the statute de novo. The court held that the plain language of West Virginia Code § 61-11-25(a) precludes expungement when a charge is dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea to another offense. The court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, finding that the petitioner was ineligible to seek expungement of the drug charge under the applicable statute. View "In re: Petition of D.K. for Expungement of Record" on Justia Law

The petitioner was indicted on multiple charges, including first-degree robbery and child neglect, in Kanawha County, West Virginia. After concerns about his competency arose during arraignment, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ordered psychological evaluations. The petitioner was found incompetent to stand trial but likely to regain competency within ninety days, leading to his commitment to a state hospital for competency restoration. While initially participating in treatment, the petitioner later refused both group sessions and prescribed medication, prompting the hospital to seek court approval for involuntary medication to restore competency.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County held an evidentiary hearing, considering expert testimony and the petitioner’s objections. The court found that involuntary medication was necessary and appropriate, relying on the four-part test from Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). The court granted the hospital’s request, authorizing involuntary administration of medication if the petitioner continued to refuse treatment. The petitioner then sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing that the state constitution provided greater protections than the federal standard and challenging the court’s authority to order involuntary medication.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the statutory framework and the constitutional arguments. It held that West Virginia law authorizes circuit courts to order involuntary medication for competency restoration and adopted the Sell test as the governing standard. The court further held that the State must prove the Sell factors by clear and convincing evidence. Although the circuit court applied a lower standard, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient under the higher standard and denied the writ of prohibition, affirming the lower court’s order permitting involuntary medication for competency restoration. View "State of West Virginia ex rel. Urban v. The Honorable David Hardy" on Justia Law

The case concerns a mother whose three children were removed from her care after the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect. The Department asserted that both parents abused substances, failed to provide adequate food, clothing, supervision, and housing, and exposed the children to unsanitary and unsafe living conditions. The eldest child, though living primarily with her grandmother, was still exposed to the parents’ home environment. Law enforcement and expert witnesses described the home as cluttered, with animal feces present, and testified to the children’s significant developmental, nutritional, and medical issues, which were attributed to environmental neglect.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County held a series of hearings, during which evidence was presented by both the Department and the mother. The court found that the children were in imminent danger and ratified their removal. After multiple adjudicatory hearings, the court found the children to be abused and neglected, though it initially failed to enter a written order with specific factual findings. At the dispositional hearing, the court denied the mother’s request for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, citing her continued drug use, lack of acknowledgment of the children’s conditions, and failure to take responsibility. The court then terminated her parental rights, finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be corrected in the near future.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed whether the absence of specific factual findings at adjudication deprived the lower court of subject matter jurisdiction to proceed to disposition. The court held that while specific findings are a statutory prerequisite for moving to disposition, they are not a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the denial of an improvement period and the termination of parental rights, concluding that the lower court did not err under the facts presented. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed. View "In re R.M., B.M., and H.M." on Justia Law

A mother was involved in two separate abuse and neglect proceedings concerning her three children. In the first case, both she and the children’s father were alleged to have engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence, and the father was also accused of abusing one child. After participating in services, the mother regained custody, but the father’s parental rights were terminated, and a no-contact order was issued against him. In the second case, the Department of Human Services alleged that the mother violated the no-contact order by allowing the father back into the home, continued to engage in domestic violence with him, and failed to protect the children. The mother claimed that the father forced his way into her home and that she was afraid to call law enforcement due to his threats.The Circuit Court of Nicholas County found probable cause to remove the children and, after a contested adjudicatory hearing, determined that the mother was an abusive and neglectful parent. The court did not make findings regarding the mother’s assertion that she was a “battered parent” under West Virginia law, despite her testimony and request for such a determination. The court subsequently terminated her parental rights, finding no reasonable likelihood that she could correct the conditions of abuse and neglect and that termination was in the children’s best interests.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that when a parent asserts “battered parent” status before the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court must allow evidence on that issue and make specific findings as required by statute. Because the circuit court failed to do so, both the adjudicatory and dispositional orders were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "In re J.F.-1, C.F., and L.H." on Justia Law