Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of uttering one Federal Reserve note and of possession with intent to utter eight counterfeit Federal Reserve notes. In common language, these notes are referred to as twenty-dollar bills. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that Defendant's conduct was prohibited by West Virginia law, as (1) a "note" as that term is used in W. Va. Code 61-4-3 includes Federal Reserve notes issued by the Federal Reserve System, and a Federal Reserve note issued by the Federal Reserve System is a note of a "banking institution" as that term is used in section 61-4-3; and (2) a "forged bank note" as that term is used in W. Va. Code 61-4-6 includes Federal Reserve notes issued by the Federal Reserve System. View "State v. Moffit" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seventeen counts of felony and misdemeanor sexual offenses. Defendant did not file an appeal until he was resentenced. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by (1) allowing the indictment to be amended, (2) allowing the State to call a witness that was not named on the witness list, and (3) allowing the State to recall a witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the amendment to the indictment; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness not previously on the witness list to testify, as defense counsel's preparation or presentation was not damaged by the late disclosure; and (3) Defendant failed to preserve and adequately brief the issue of the State recalling a witness during the State's case-in-chief. View "State v. Larry A. H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of sexual assault in the first degree, seven counts of sexual abuse by a custodian or parent, and one count of conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing primarily that his confrontation and due process rights were violated because he was not permitted to let the jury know that the complaining witness, R.M., had made various statements that sexual misconduct had been perpetrated against her by individuals other than Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) given the age and history of R.M. and the specificity of her statements relating to Defendant, the exclusion of Defendant's evidence regarding R.M.'s reports and statements of sexual misconduct committed against her by others was within the trial court's discretion; and (2) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree against a minor. Defendant appealed, contending that the circuit court erred by allowing the victim to testify that Defendant assaulted her more than ten or twelve times. Defendant did not object to this testimony at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court did not plainly err in permitting the prosecutor to introduce, through the victim's testimony, evidence pertaining to Defendant's other, extraneous bad acts against the victim, as the evidence challenged by Defendant was intrinsic evidence, inextricably intertwined with the acts charged in the indictment. Accordingly, the evidence did not fall under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b)'s limitations on admissible evidence. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant was on supervised release from federal custody when he pleaded guilty to second degree robbery in state court. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend that any sentence imposed by the circuit court run concurrent to any federal sentence imposed by the U.S. district court for violation of his supervised release. After the circuit court sentenced Defendant, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his guilty plea was defective because it contained a promise - that his state and federal sentences would run concurrently - which was not fulfilled. The circuit court denied the petition. While Defendant's appeal was pending, Defendant was paroled from the West Virginia Department of Corrections and was no longer in the custody of the State. At the time of this appeal, Defendant was in federal custody. The Court was informed that federal authorities credited Defendant for the time he served in State custody. Thus Defendant's state and federal sentences were effectively served concurrent to each other. The Supreme Court declared the instant appeal moot, as Defendant was no longer in State custody and had obtained the relief he sought. View "Leeper-El v. Hoke" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of simple battery as a lesser included offense of malicious assault. The circuit court resentenced Defendant to one year incarceration. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting his medical records into evidence during his trial. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) it was error for the trial court to allow the prosecutor to introduce evidence of Defendant's medical records, as the prosecutor could not support issuance of a subpoena duces tecum under W. Va. R. Crim. P. 71, and W. Va. Code 57-5-4 could not be relied upon as authority for issuance of the subpoena; but (2) this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. McGill" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a registered professional nurse, was terminated from her employment when her employer concluded that Petitioner had unlawfully obtained prescription narcotics for personal use or distribution to others. In 2008, Petitioner's employer filed a complaint against Petitioner in that regard with the Board of Examiners for Registered Professional Nurses. Petitioner was subsequently hired at another medical center, and her employment was terminated. In 2009, Petitioner's second employer filed a complaint with the Board, suggesting that Petitioner had unlawfully obtained prescription narcotics for personal use or distribution to others. In 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition asking the Supreme Court to direct the Board to dismiss the 2008 and 2009 complaints, alleging that the Board's continuances of the administrative hearings scheduled to resolve the two complaints were contrary to law, had deprived Petitioner of substantial resources, and had improperly delayed the entry of a final administrative decision. The Supreme Court granted the writ and dismissed the two complaints, holding that the Board effectively denied Petitioner an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the allegations against her. View "State ex rel. Fillinger v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

Respondents were former employees of Verizon West Virginia, Inc. who filed wrongful termination claims against Verizon based upon alleged violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. Petitioners were Verizon and various of its managerial and similar-positioned employees (collectively, Verizon) who were named as defendants in the underlying wrongful termination proceedings. At issue before the Supreme Court was Verizon's contention that Respondents' counsel's (Law Firm) prior representation of other former employees of Verizon in substantially related matters that were settled and dismissed required Law Firm to be disqualified. The circuit court permitted Law Firm to continue its representation of Respondents. Verizon subsequently requested the issuance of a writ of prohibition disqualifying Law Firm. The Supreme Court denied the writ, finding that Verizon was not entitled to prohibitory relief because (1) Law Firm's successive representation of its former and current clients did not constitute a conflict under the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct; and (2) moreover, the relief requested by Verizon would impermissibly restrict Law Firm's right to practice law in contravention of the Rules of Professional Conduct. View "State ex rel. Verizon West Virginia, Inc. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

The underlying litigation in this case involved the Legislature's enactment of "Special Acts" for nine county boards of education requiring them to divert a portion of their regular levy receipts in support of their local libraries. The Kanawha County Board of Education (BOE) originally brought suit in circuit court, alleging that one such Act's requirement that the BOE contribute to the funding of the Kanawha County Public Library violated equal protection. The Supreme Court agreed and found the statute unconstitutional. In response, the Legislature amended the statute. The County BOE then filed the instant action, arguing that the statute as amended violated equal protection. The circuit court invalidated as unconstitutional the Special Act to the extent it required the BOE to divert a portion of its regular levy receipts in support of the Library or transfer the funding obligation to its excess levy, and enjoined the Library and the West Virginia BOE from enforcing the Special Act as it pertained to the County BOE's library funding obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act, to the extent it obligated the County BOE to divert a portion of its regular or excess levy receipts to the Library, was unconstitutional and unenforceable. View "Kanawha County Pub. Library Bd. v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Kanawha" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust and third degree sexual assault. Due to Petitioner's health concerns, the trial court permitted Petitioner to serve his sentences by the alternate means of electronically-monitored home incarceration. Petitioner subsequently sought habeas corpus relief for sentencing and post-sentencing matters. The trial court modified the terms of Petitioner's home incarceration to afford Petitioner, among other things, one hour per day of recreational time outside the physical confines of his house and to permit travel outside the state for necessary medical appointments. Petitioner appealed, seeking immediate release from any further incarceration in light of his continuing deterioration due to Parkinson's disease. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis for habeas corpus relief or for further modification of the terms of Petitioner's sentencing. View "Elder v. Scolapia" on Justia Law