Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and refused to submit to a secondary breath test. Respondent’s driver’s license was subsequently revoked by the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles for both DUI and the refusal to submit to the designated chemical test. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) rescinded the driver’s license revocation on the grounds that (1) Respondent was misled to believe that he had a choice as to whether he wanted to take a breath test or a blood test, and therefore, revocation for refusing the secondary chemical test was inappropriate; and (2) Respondent was effectively denied his right to obtain an independent blood test. The circuit court upheld the OAH’s order. The Supreme Court found that Respondent’s license revocations for refusal to submit to the secondary breath test were proper but his license revocations for DUI were erroneous, holding (1) the lower tribunals erroneously concluded that Respondent had a rational basis for perceiving that he had a choice between the breath test and the blood test, and therefore, revocation for refusing the secondary chemical test was appropriate; and (2) Respondent was denied his statutory and due process rights to have his blood tested independently. View "Reed v. Hall" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed this civil action under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting from West Virginia University School of Medicine (WVU) documents relating to eight articles co-authored by a WVU associate professor suggesting that the environmental impacts of surface coal mining plan a role in the health problems of the area’s residents. WVU released certain documents to Petitioner but withheld or redacted other documents, claiming they were statutorily exempt from disclosure. The circuit court eventually granted summary judgment for WVU, concluding that WVU had properly refused to provide all withheld and redacted documents on the basis of FOIA’s statutory exemptions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) WVU may invoke the FOIA’s “internal memoranda” exemption to withhold documents that reflect the author’s deliberative process; (2) WVU may not claim an “academic freedom” privilege to justify its wholesale avoidance of the plain language of the FOIA; (3) the FOIA’s “personal privacy” exemption is not applicable to documents containing anonymous peer review comments of the draft articles, but those documents are nevertheless exempt from disclosure under the “internal memoranda” exemption; and (4) Petitioner should have been afforded the opportunity to modify its FOIA requests before the circuit court dismissed the action. View "Highland Mining Co. v. W. Va. Univ. Sch. of Medicine" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Shanton was indicted in a fifty-four count indictment connected to her use of a purchasing card (P-card) issued pursuant to West Virginia’s Purchasing Card Program. The circuit court dismissed fifty-three counts, each of which alleged that Shanton used the P-card in violation of W. Va. code 12-3-10b. The circuit court determined that the inclusion of these counts in the indictment violated principles of double jeopardy because (1) each swipe of the P-Card was part of a continuing offense, and therefore, Shanton could only be charged with one violation of section 12-3-10b; and (2) the elements of the crime described in the fifty-three dismissed counts overlapped completely with the elements of the remaining count. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order dismissing the fifty-three counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by (i) collapsing counts 2 through 54 into a single count, thereby effectively dismissing all but one of those counts, and (ii) dismissing the condensed count, thereby dismissing all counts in the indictment alleging violations of section 12-3-10b; and (2) the State was entitled to the writ it sought. View "State ex rel. Lorenzetti v. Hon. Sanders" on Justia Law

Prior to his termination, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, a tin plate manufacturer, as a technician operator. After his termination, Petitioner and his wife (Petitioners) filed this action seeking damages for retaliatory discharge and loss of consortium, alleging that Petitioner was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) and making complaints to Respondent about those permit violations. Respondents removed the case to federal court on grounds of diversity. The federal district court then certified a question to the West Virginia supreme Court, which answered the question as follows: An employee who alleges that he was discharged for reporting violations of a permit issued under authority of the WPCA and making complaints to his employer about those permit violations has established the predicate substantial public policy required to prima facie prove that the employer’s motivation for the discharge was the contravention of public policy. View "Frohnapfel v. Arcelormittal USA LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Petitioner was found guilty of battery. The court found that the battery was sexually motivated and ordered Petitioner to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the battery conviction but reversed the finding that the offense was sexually motivated, holding (1) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to provide pretrial notice of its intent to seek a finding of sexual motivation, and the trial court’s finding of sexual motivation and concomitant registration requirements constituted plain error requiring reversal; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Petitioner committed battery. View "State v. Seen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted of one felony count of abduction with intent to defile and one misdemeanor count of battery. Respondent later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his right to a fair trial was violated because he was briefly placed in handcuffs in view of some members of the jury. The circuit court agreed, granted the writ, and vacated Respondent’s convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent being handcuffed in view of “at least some of the jurors” for a brief period of time was not sufficient to establish reversible error, nor grounds for a mistrial. View "Ballard v. Meckling" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder in the first degree, three counts of malicious assault, and other offenses arising from Defendant’s acts of deliberately shooting a man twice in the back and, in the process, accidentally shooting an eight-year-old girl. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding, primarily, that the circuit court erred in allowing a witness to make a blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment without requiring the witness invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in front of the jury, thus violating Defendant’s constitutional right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Herbert" on Justia Law

In 1992, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the recommendation of mercy. In 1995, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. In 2012, Petitioner filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2013, Petitioner was paroled. The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition as moot because Petitioner no longer satisfied the statutory requirement of being incarcerated and because Petitioner received the relief he sought - release from custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as a parolee, Petitioner was no longer incarcerated, and therefore, he was no entitled to seek post-conviction habeas relief. View "Cline v. Mirandy" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of forty years in prison. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in the manner in which it conducted a suppression hearing concerning his videotaped statement and erred in finding that a statement he made was voluntarily given to the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner’s challenges to the suppression hearing failed; and (2) under the circumstances, the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner’s statement was voluntary and in admitting the statement into evidence. View "State v. Marcum" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to two charges under an indictment - obtaining money by false pretenses and fraudulent scheme - and six counts in an information. Defendant later filed a motion to correct his sentence under W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(a), contending that his two felony convictions under the indictment violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy principles do not preclude a conviction for a fraudulent scheme offense in addition to a conviction for any other offense arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. View "State v. Coles" on Justia Law