Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of the second degree murder of his former girlfriend. Defendant appealed, submitting several assignments of error. The State conceded error with regard to two of those assignments but argued that the errors were harmless. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) it was constitutional error under the Confrontation Clause for the trial court to admit into evidence the autopsy report and to permit the chief medical examiner for the State to testify as a surrogate witness in place of the deputy assistant medical examiner, who conducted the forensic investigation into the circumstances of the victim's death; and (2) the error was not harmless, as the State failed to demonstrate that the autopsy finding and conclusions did not contribute to the verdict. View "State v. Frazier" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the offense of escape from custody. Thereafter, Petitioner appealed his conviction pursuant to the sentencing order of the circuit court, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to this offense because his act of leaving home confinement only amounted to a violation of pre-trial bail condition rather than an escape from custody or confinement. Petitioner further argued that the lower court erred by ordering him to pay restitution to the State for costs associated with apprehending him following his unauthorized departure from home confinement. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Petitioner's conviction, holding that Petitioner effectively waived or forfeited his right to appeal his conviction by failing to enter a conditional guilty plea or otherwise preserve the matter for review; and (2) reversed the imposition of restitution, holding that the restitution provisions of the Victim Protection Act do not extend to recovery of costs or expenses incurred by governmental agencies in apprehending perpetrators of criminal acts. View "State v. McGill" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff learned his confidential medical and psychological information at St. Mary's Medical Center had been improperly accessed, Plaintiff filed several state-law claims against St. Mary's. The circuit court granted St. Mary's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state-law claims based upon its conclusion that the claims were preempted by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In addition, St. Mary's asserted a cross assignment of error arguing that the circuit court erred by finding that Plaintiff's claims did not fall under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) and concluding, therefore, that Plaintiff was not required to file a notice of claim and screening certificate of merit. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court's order insofar as it granted St. Mary's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based upon its conclusion that Plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted by HIPAA, holding that Plaintiff's state-law claims for the wrongful disclosure of his medical and personal health information were not preempted by HIPAA; and (2) affirmed the order to the extent it found Plaintiff's claims did not fall under the MPLA. Remanded. View "R.K. v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

As a result of a criminal investigation, Petitioner and others were arrested at Petitioner's home. Petitioner was prosecuted in federal court. The State filed a petition for forfeiture of the property owned by Petitioner. Petitioner later pleaded guilty to several drug offenses. The State then filed a summary judgment motion in the forfeiture action, which the circuit court granted. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment and its determination that the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions were not violated. Because the Court was unable to assess whether the forfeiture of Petitioner's real property in this case violated the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the case was remanded for further development of the record. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Respondent was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. The circuit court subsequently granted Respondent habeas corpus relief, finding that Respondent's counsel in his second trial was ineffective. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in (1) ruling that it was constitutional error for the trial court to fail to advise Respondent of his right to testify and not to testify and that trial counsel's failure to enforce this right rose to the level of ineffectiveness; and (2) determining that Respondent's co-defendant was not a credible witness. View "Ballard v. Hurt" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed an order of the circuit court denying his petition for a writ of prohibition. Petitioner had sought extraordinary relief in the court below in an effort to stop the Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from pursuing license revocation proceedings against him. Petitioner contended that he was deprived of constitutional and statutory protections because DMV had no shown good cause for the repeated delays in hearing the license revocation matter. The lower court denied relief in prohibition, concluding that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Hare posed identical issues and rendered Petitioner's request moot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower court misinterpreted the Court's holding in Hare by failing to observe its limited application to facts not present in this case; and (2) the circuit court was required to address problems in the record. Remanded to determine whether good cause was established under existing due process standards for granting the continuances in Petitioner's DMV proceeding, and for entry of a final order capable of review. View "Holland v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against The Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation, Stella-Jones U.S. Holding Corporation, and Stella-Jones, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) alleging that Defendants unlawfully terminated his employment based on his age. Finding that Defendants wrongfully terminated the employment of Plaintiff based on his age, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $2,133,990, which represented compensatory damages for lost back pay and front pay. Denying that age played any role in Plaintiff's termination, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Defendants submitted three assignments of error upon which they contended the motion for a new trial should have been granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Rice " on Justia Law

This action arose from modifications resulting from landfill activity made to real property that was adjacent to the property of Respondents. Respondents filed a complaint against the Town of Pratt and others, alleging that the modifications allegedly caused a change in the normal water flow on Respondents' property and resulted in property damage. The Town filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment, asserting it was entitled to be dismissed based on sovereign immunity. The circuit court denied the Town's motion as premature, finding that the parties should conduct discovery prior to the court making a determination regarding the Town's immunity arguments. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order denying the Town's motion and granted the Town's requested writ of prohibition, finding that the Town's immunity was purely a question of law and ripe for summary disposition at the circuit court level through a motion to dismiss. View "State ex rel. Town of Pratt v. Circuit Court (Stucky)" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a circuit court order affirming a magistrate court's ruling that she obstructed a police officer in violation of W. Va. Code 61-5-17(a). Defendant admitted she lied to a police officer during the course of a felony investigation and that the false statement she gave was a violation of section 61-5-17(c). Defendant argued, however, that making a false statement to a police officer is not a violation of section 61-5-17(a) and that her conviction should be overturned because she was charged under the wrong statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order, holding that Defendant's conduct - lying to a law-enforcement officer during the course of an official investigation - was sufficient to support a conviction of obstruction pursuant to section 61-5-17(a). View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

This was a criminal appeal by Defendant from an order of the circuit court sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole for first degree murder, ten to twenty-five years imprisonment on each of nine counts of sexual assault in the second degree, and one to five years imprisonment on each of three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not commit error in rejecting a plea proposal; (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of felony murder; and (3) the trial judge properly admitted a statement Defendant made to the police. View "State v. Welch" on Justia Law