Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree for entering a Wendy’s restaurant and attempting to obtain money by holding a machete against the throat of a restaurant employee. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence of forty years in the penitentiary, holding (1) Defendant’s confession to the police was properly admitted at trial, as it was not given in violation of Defendant’s right to counsel, and the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary; and (2) the employee’s in-court identification of Defendant was properly admitted at trial. View "State v. Blackburn" on Justia Law

Following allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) brought a child abuse and neglect proceeding against Father and Mother (Petitioners). After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found that the children were abused and neglected, and, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the parental rights of Petitioners. Petitioners appealed, arguing that their procedural due process rights were violated when the out-of-court statements of two children were admitted to prove allegations of sexual abuse when Petitioners were not given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the children. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Petitioners’ parental rights, holding (1) in a child abuse and neglect civil proceeding held pursuant to W. Va. Code 29-6-2, a party does not have a procedural due process right to confront and cross-examine a child, and the circuit court shall exclude this testimony if it finds the potential psychological harm to the child outweighs the necessity of the child’s testimony; and (2) the circuit court adequately safeguarded Petitioners’ procedural due process rights in this case. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts contained in the affidavit used to obtain search warrants for Appellant’s home and car provided the magistrate with a sufficient basis to demonstrate probable cause of the issuance of the search warrants; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the ammunition and knives found at Appellant’s residence; (3) Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated when the trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion for a continuance; and (4) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Corey" on Justia Law

Richard and Linda Nease served a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request on the City of Nitro to inspect or copy certain public City records. The City granted the request in part but advised the Neases that the remaining documents would be subject to a search fee. The Neases then instituted a FOIA action. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Neases, determining that the City ordinance providing for the imposition of a search fee was unlawful because W. Va. Code 29B-1-3 authorizes public bodies to collect the costs of copying requested records but does not sanction a search fee. The City appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the fees authorized in conjunction with FOIA production requests include the actual costs of reproduction as well as a search or retrieval fee, provided that any such fee is reasonable. View "King v. Nease" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant's recorded confession was not obtained in violation of his right to be promptly presented before a magistrate following his arrest, and therefore, the trial court did not err by not suppressing the confession; (2) the trial court did not deny Defendant a theory of defense by refusing to give an insanity instruction; (3) W. Va. Code 62-3-15 is not unconstitutional; and (4) the trial court did not commit reversible error in instructing the jury on the use of notes and note taking. View "State v. Flournoy" on Justia Law

In 2009, GameStop, Inc., which operated retail stores that sold video games and video gaming software, hired Petitioner as an assistant manager. When she began her employment, Petitioner received a store associate handbook. In a document included with the handbook was an arbitration agreement. Petitioner signed and dated an acknowledgment of the handbook and rules including arbitration. In 2011, Petitioner sued GameStop and some of its managers (collectively, GameStop) for wrongful discharge, sexual harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other causes of action. The circuit court dismissed the complaint pending Petitioner's submission of her claims to final and binding arbitration. Petitioner appealed, arguing that she did not enter into a valid arbitration with GameStop or, in the alternative, the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner and GameStop entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate Petitioner's claims; and (2) the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. View "New v. GameStop, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and death of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he had been punished twice for the same offense and, thus, his double jeopardy protections were violated. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the two offenses of which Petitioner was charged and convicted were separate and distinct pursuant to the test set forth under Blockburger v. United States because (1) intent to kill is an element of second degree murder but is not an element of the offense of death of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian; and (2) the offense of death of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian by child abuse contains elements of proof not required to establish second degree murder. View "Gerlach v. Ballard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian or custodian, and distribution and display of obscene matter to a minor. The victim, who was four years old at the time of the offenses, was found to be incompetent to testify. During trial, the trial court admitted certain of the victim's out-of-court statements. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) even if the admission of the victim's out-of-court statements was error under Crawford v. Washington and State v. Mechling, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) any error in the State's closing argument did not result in manifest injustice that would require the reversal of Petitioner's conviction. View "State v. Lambert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and malicious wounding. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder count and up to ten years' imprisonment for the malicious wounding count. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis of perjured testimony because the jury was made fully aware that a false statement was made to Defendant's grand jury; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant's convictions; and (3) the trial court did not err by permitting the State to introduce two prior acts of violence that Defendant committed against the victim. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on appeal. Defendant later filed a petition for habeas relief. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court found that Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to investigate a confession by a third party that he had killed the victim. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order granting Defendant habeas relief in the form of a new trial, holding that Defendant's counsel provided constitutionally deficient performance and that, but for counsel's errors, there was a reasonable probability the results of the proceedings would have been different. View "Ballard v. Ferguson" on Justia Law