Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by the prosecuting attorney of Monongalia County to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order suppressing Cesar Felix's statement to Morgantown police and certain DNA evidence, holding that the circuit court committed clear legal error.Cesar Felix worked at a restaurant where a woman claimed that she was sexually assaulted upon leaving. When police interviewed him, Defendant denied any involvement in the crime and consented to a DNA search by cheek swab. The DNA evidence linked Felix to the crime, and he was subsequently charged with two counts of sexual assault. Defendant filed a motion to suppress his statement and the DNA evidence, claiming that he was not given Miranda warnings or advised of his right to refuse his consent to the DNA search. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was not in custody when he gave his statement, and therefore, no Miranda warnings were required; (2) Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and due process rights were not violated; and (3) Defendant's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches was not violated. View "State ex rel. DeChristopher v. Gaujot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered certified questions of law by holding that W. Va. Code 60A-4-416(b), which criminalizes the failure of any person who, while engaged in the illegal use of a controlled substance with another, knowingly fails to seek medical assistance for such other person and an overdose or adverse physical reaction proximately causes the death of the other person, is constitutional.Petitioner was indicted on the charge of failing to render aid to another, in violation of section 60A-4-416(b). Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. The circuit court held the motion in abeyance and determined that certain aspects of section 60A-4-416(b) warranted the certification of two questions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) the phrase in section 60A-4-416(b) "any person who, while engaged in the illegal use of a controlled substance with another" is not unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the undefined phrase "seek medical assistance" in the context of the statute provides an adequate standard for adjudication. View "State v. Conner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court that denied Petitioner's appeal of an order of the family court modifying an infant guardianship order to prohibit Petitioner from having any contact with his child, J.B., holding that Petitioner's due process rights were violated.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the family court erred by failing to give him adequate notice or the opportunity to be heard at the final hearing in this matter. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the circuit court's final order, holding that Petitioner was not afforded his due process rights as the father of J.B. when he was not afforded the opportunity to refute the family court's assumption that he was unfit to have contact with his child. The Court remanded this case for a full evidentiary hearing before the family court. View "David C. v. Tammy S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia by concluding that West Virginia does not recognize a private right of action for monetary damages for violations of W. Va. Const. art. III, 6.Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging several state law claims, including violations of Article III, Section 6, and several federal law claims. Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's claim for relief under the West Virginia Constitution on the grounds that state constitutional claims are not supported by the law. The district court then submitted its certified question to the Court. The Supreme Court answered that West Virginia does not recognize a private right of action for monetary damages for a violation of Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. View "Fields v. Mellinger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court that ordered the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to grant the application for a motor vehicle salesperson license submitted by Timothy McCabe, holding that W. Va. Code 17A-6E-4(c)(5) is rationally related to the State's legitimate interest in preventing fraudulent activity in the motor vehicle industry and is not arbitrary or discriminatory.McCabe was denied a permanent motor vehicle salesperson license pursuant to section 17A-6E-4(c)(5), which prohibits the issuance of a motor vehicle salesperson license to an applicant previously convicted of a felony involving financial matters or the motor vehicle industry. The circuit court ordered that McCabe's application for a motor vehicle salesperson license be granted, concluding that the statute cannot lawfully be applied to applicants who were convicted of felonies prior to the enactment of the statute, that Defendant was denied due process, and that the statute is both constitutionally overbroad and overly narrow. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 17A-6E-4(c)(5) is a regulatory statute that does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws; (2) Defendant was afforded his procedural due process rights; and (3) the statute is neither overly broad nor overly narrow. View "Frazier v. McCabe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempting to solicit a minor using a computer, holding that the warrantless seizure of Defendant's cell phone was reasonable under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his cell phone, arguing that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement did not cover law enforcement's seizure of his phone. The circuit court denied Defendant's motion, apparently based on the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. After Defendant was convicted he appealed, arguing that the temporary warrantless seizure of his cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Deem" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's requested writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing a ruling that found an audio/video recording of a voluntary statement made to law enforcement officers by H.D., the defendant in the underlying criminal proceeding, violated H.D.'s privilege against self-incrimination, holding that a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by the admission into evidence and/or publication to the jury during a criminal proceeding of an audio/video recording of the defendant's voluntary statement made to law enforcement officers. Because H.D. was in a non-custodial setting when he made his incriminating statement and affirmatively waived his rights, H.D. may not now assert the privilege against self-incrimination in his criminal proceeding to avoid the admission into evidence and/or publication to the jury of that recording. View "State ex rel. Wade v. Honorable David W. Hummel, Jr." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for incest, sexual assault in the third degree, and sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in a position of trust to a child, holding that there was no error.Defendant's first trial resulted in a hung jury, and his second trial resulted in a conviction on nine counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the first trial did not result in Defendant's acquittal based on the circuit court's manner of polling the jury; (2) the circuit court did not err when it continued Defendant's first trial past the first term of court over Defendant's objection; (3) there was no error in the circuit court's decision to allow the jury to hear the State's DNA evidence; (4) the circuit court did not err in refusing to dismiss a juror who admitted to knowing the victim and the prosecutor; and (5) the doctrine of cumulative error did not apply in Defendant's case. View "State v. Jeremy S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's' motion to dismiss the indictment in his case, holding that West Virginia's felon in possession of a firearm statute is not void for vagueness.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant later appealed the order of the circuit court denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing (1) the felon in possession of a firearm statute, W. Va. Code 61-7-7(b), is void for vagueness; or (2) in the alternative, the predicate statute that served as the basis for his conviction was not a crime of violence against the person of another. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 61-7-7(b) is constitutional; and (2) a prior felony conviction for wanton endangerment in the first degree is a crime of violence against the person of another within the meaning of section 61-7-7(b). View "State v. Mills" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming Defendant's conviction for one count of domestic battery, holding that law enforcement officers' entry into Defendant's home was reasonable under the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement.After a magistrate court jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of domestic battery of his wife and sentenced to ten days in jail. The circuit court affirmed, holding that the officers' entry into Defendant's home fell under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment and that, therefore, the officers acted reasonably. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the warrantless entry into Defendant's home fell within the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to reversal on his remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Rexrode" on Justia Law