Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant David Kaufman was convicted of first degree murder in the circuit court. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the victim's diary and certain statements by the victim to others, both of which recounted alleged threats and acts of violence by appellant towards the victim during the weeks preceding her death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) the trial court's admission of the entire diary without an analysis of each declaration and remark from the diary was an abuse of discretion because when ruling upon the admission of a narrative under the hearsay rule of evidence, a trial court must break down the narrative and determine the separate admissibility of each single declaration or remark; and (2) the trial court committed error in admitting certain statements by the victim without setting forth any reasoning in support of its ruling that the victim's statements were admissible under State v. Sutphin. Remanded. View "State v. Kaufman" on Justia Law

Appellant Carroll Humphries, a convicted felon, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court after his conviction. The Court reversed and remanded the case due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon remand, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the crime of accessory before the fact to murder, and appellant was found guilty. Later, appellant instituted a legal malpractice action against his attorney, Paul Detch. Detch filed a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court granted. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in a suit against an attorney for negligence, the plaintiff must prove the attorney's employment, the attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff; (2) to state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising during a criminal proceeding, a plaintiff must establish that he is actually innocent of the underlying criminal offense; and (3) the rules of evidence in this case did not prohibit the conviction and sentence that resulted from the nolo contendere plea from being admitted as evidence in the legal malpractice action to prove the plaintiff was convicted of the crime that was the subject of the nolo contedere plea. View "Humphries v. Detch" on Justia Law

The Clerk of the McDowell County Commission appealed an order of the Circuit Court of McDowell County pertaining to mandamus proceedings. The Commission was directed to reimburse the attorney fees of A. Ray Bailey who was the prevailing party in an election contest. The Commission argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the Commission to pay Mr. Bailey's fees when the Commission was not a party to the election contest. Furthermore, The Commission argued that there was no statutory authority to support the award. Upon review of the arguments and law governing this matter, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's order directing payment of attorney fees by the Commission.

Appellants Family Protection Services Board, its secretary/treasurer, and several of its members all appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Men & Women Against Discrimination (MAWAD). The Board is a public body created by the West Virginia Domestic Violence Act (WVDVA). Among other things, the Board is charged with establishing and enforcing standards for the licensure of all domestic violence shelters and family protection programs in the state. The Board also provides funds for shelters and programs once they become licensed. In 2008, MAWAD filed a complaint alleging that the Board implemented the WVDVA in a discriminatory manner. MAWAD sought to enjoin the Board from disbursing funds to shelters and programs until the alleged discriminatory practices were addressed. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of MAWAD, rendering three legislative rules promulgated by the Board as "null and void." Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The Court found MAWAD lacked standing to bring suit against the Board. The Court dismissed the case.

Defendant Stanley Myers appealed an order of the circuit court that determined he was a sexually violent predator. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant asserted that the trial court failed to make a statutory determination within the time frame contemplated by the governing statute. On the day after Defendant's release from prison in 2006, he registered with the State Police as a "sexual predator." As a result of an incident several years later, the State discovered Defendant was not on the "sexually violent predator" list. The State filed a motion to request Defendant be placed on the list. Upon careful review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by determining, contrary to state law, that Defendant was a sexually violent predator after Defendant had completed his period of incarceration. The Court reversed the decision of the lower court.

Petitioner The Lincoln Journal, Inc. sought a writ of prohibition against the Honorable Jane Hustead, to prevent an order to compel the revelation of alleged confidential and First Amendment privileged news sources and news gathering materials. Respondents Timothy Butcher and Bobby Adkins filed suit against the Journal alleging that eleven news articles that reported on the 2008 Lincoln County Primary Election were defamatory. These articles reported an ongoing investigation into alleged campaign law violations, including allegations that election laws were violated by individuals who funneled or received thousands of dollars in support of candidates backed by Dan Butcher. The circuit court ordered production of the Journalâs sources. Petitioner asserted that if forced to produce the privileged documents, the resulting breach of confidentiality and exposure of the news gathering materials would be severe and irreparable. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the case, and found that the circuit court erred by compelling the Journal to reveal its sources and news gathering materials. The Court granted the writ of prohibition, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Three cases were consolidated for appeal. All cases challenged the constitutionality of West Virginia Code 62-12-26, which provides for a period of extended supervision after the release of certain sex offenders from custody. While the particular arguments of the appellants varied, the collective basis for challenging the statute as facially unconstitutional on both federal and state grounds was that the statutory provisions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violated due process rights, and served to subject a person to double jeopardy. Upon completion of its review of the arguments, relevant statutes, applicable case law and commentary, the Supreme Court concluded that West Virginia Code 62-12-26 is not facially unconstitutional on these grounds. Furthermore, the Court found “no breach of constitutional principle or abuse of discretion in the application of the statute.” Accordingly, the orders from the courts in West Virginia v. James, West Virginia v. Hedrick and West Virginia v. Daniels are affirmed. View "West Virginia v. James, West Virginia v. Hedrick, West Virginia v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Anthony Juntilla appealed his convictions of first degree murder, sexual assault and conspiracy. Defendant was accused of the assault, beating and stabbing death of his girlfriendâs one-year-old daughter. The circuit court ordered Defendantâs sentences to run consecutively. Defendant challenged his convictions and sentences on multiple grounds, the majority being procedural errors at trial that lead to him being wrongly convicted. After a thorough review of the lower courtsâ records, the Supreme Court found no errors at trial. The Court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict him of the charges against him. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendantâs convictions and sentences.

Petitioner The Galloway Group (Galloway) is a partnership of lawyers with an office in West Virginia. Galloway entered into an agreement with Respondents Fredeking & Fredeking Law Offices, LC (Fredeking) wherein the parties agreed to share attorney fees generated in litigation. Fredeking filed a complaint against Galloway in Wyoming circuit court, alleging that Galloway failed to pay under the agreement. Galloway responded in the Wyoming courts, arguing that Wyoming was not the proper venue for the dispute. After a hearing, the Wyoming court denied Gallowayâs motions, and concluded that the dispute could move forward in Wyoming. Galloway sought a writ of prohibition from the West Virginia Supreme Court to prevent the Wyoming court from enforcing its order. Upon review, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that Wyoming was indeed improper venue, and it granted Galloway and writ for prohibition. Consequently, the Wyoming action was dismissed.

Two cases were consolidated by the Supreme Court. In each of the underlying cases, the Petitioners sought relief in the form of writs of mandamus and prohibition. The Supreme Court found that the financial affidavits required for proceeding in forma pauperis were properly filed in each case. The Court found that the magistrate courts in each of the cases failed to perform a ânon-discretionary dutyâ by requiring the posting of an appeal bond in one case, or the payment of a filing fee in the other. The Supreme Court found that the requested writs of mandamus should be granted as moulded.