Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Lateef Jabrall McGann was convicted by a jury for the felony offense of fleeing from a law enforcement officer with reckless indifference. The State of West Virginia then filed a recidivist information, asserting that McGann should be sentenced to life with mercy under West Virginia Code § 61-11-18(d). The recidivist jury found McGann had prior felony convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and wanton endangerment. The Circuit Court of Berkeley County, however, concluded that imposing a recidivist life sentence would violate the proportionality clause of the West Virginia Constitution and was arbitrary and capricious.The State sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to prevent the circuit court from imposing any sentence other than a recidivist life sentence. The State argued that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers by not imposing the mandatory life sentence as required by the recidivist statute.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the circuit court erred in its decision. The court held that the recidivist life sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate, as the crime of fleeing with reckless indifference is considered a violent felony. The court also found no evidence of selective prosecution or violation of equal protection rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition, directing the circuit court to impose the recidivist life sentence on McGann. View "State ex rel. State v. Cohee" on Justia Law

In this case, Anthony M. was convicted of wanton endangerment, malicious assault, and other charges related to a 2021 shooting involving Brittany S., the mother of his children. Brittany S. testified that Anthony M. shot her while their infant child, K.M., was nearby. The State presented evidence including text messages, cell phone location data, and a firearm linked to the shooting found in Anthony M.'s residence. Anthony M. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings, and argued that his convictions for both wanton endangerment and malicious assault violated double jeopardy protections.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County had previously denied Anthony M.'s post-trial motions, including a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial. The jury had acquitted him of charges related to a 2020 shooting but found him guilty of all charges related to the 2021 incident. He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for each conviction.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the conviction and sentence for both wanton endangerment and malicious assault violated double jeopardy protections because both charges stemmed from a single act involving one gunshot at Brittany S. The court affirmed the convictions on all other charges but vacated the conviction for wanton endangerment (Count Eleven) and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with its opinion.The court also addressed Anthony M.'s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his convictions. Additionally, the court found that the improper admission of lay opinion testimony by Brittany S.'s mother was harmless error and did not warrant a new trial. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anthony M.'s motion for a mistrial based on the State's improper comment on his right to remain silent. View "State v. Anthony M." on Justia Law

The case involves Corbett Maurice Carter, who was placed on home incarceration with electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial bond after being charged with first-degree robbery. Carter left his home, cut his electronic monitoring bracelet, and disposed of it in a dumpster. He was later apprehended and charged with felony escape. At trial, the State presented evidence including the bond order and testimony from Corporal Patrick Vance, who supervised Carter's home incarceration. The jury found Carter guilty of felony escape.The Circuit Court of Raleigh County sentenced Carter to a three-year determinate sentence. Carter appealed, arguing that home incarceration as a condition of pretrial bond does not constitute "custody" under the escape statute, West Virginia Code § 61-5-10 (2000). He contended that the statute's language and legislative intent did not encompass pretrial home incarceration and that previous court decisions differentiated between pretrial and postconviction home incarceration.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Carter was in "custody" for purposes of the escape statute, as the Raleigh County Sheriff exercised significant control over his movements and daily life. The court found no legislative intent to exclude pretrial home incarceration from the statute's reach and emphasized that the statute aims to deter escape from lawful custody, whether pretrial or postconviction. The court affirmed Carter's conviction for felony escape, concluding that he breached the confinement imposed as a condition of his bond. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court of Barbour County, West Virginia, of multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual abuse, and displaying obscene material to a minor. The charges stemmed from disclosures made by an eight-year-old girl, C.M., who described being sexually assaulted by the petitioner, her mother's boyfriend. The petitioner was sentenced to an effective term of 115 to 375 years in prison.The trial was initially set for January 2020 but was continued multiple times, with the final trial date set for July 2021. The petitioner moved for a continuance to investigate new disclosures by C.M. and to conduct a psychological evaluation of her, which the court denied. During the trial, the court admitted evidence of the petitioner’s internet search history for child pornography under Rule 404(b) without giving a limiting instruction to the jury. The jury convicted the petitioner on all counts.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court found that the Rule 404(b) evidence was properly admitted after thorough consideration and that the failure to give a limiting instruction was not plain error. The court also held that the denial of the continuance for a psychological evaluation was not an abuse of discretion, as the petitioner failed to show a compelling need for it. The court declined to address the petitioner’s claims regarding the jury questions and due process violations due to the lack of a complete record and suggested these issues could be developed in post-conviction proceedings.The court affirmed the petitioner’s convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court’s decisions. View "State of West Virginia v. Keith Jason Walker" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, Andrew Jackson McCauley, Jr., who was convicted of first-degree murder, death of a child by a custodian, and concealment of a deceased human body. The victim, R.C., a fifteen-year-old girl, lived with her mother, brothers, and the defendant. R.C. was last seen alive on May 7, 2019. Her body was discovered on May 16, 2019, in a rural area. Evidence included blood and saliva found in her bedroom, and circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene, such as drywall mud and roofing screws found near the body and in the defendant's truck.The Circuit Court of Morgan County denied the defendant's motion for a change of venue, finding that an impartial jury could be seated despite pretrial publicity. The court also admitted expert testimony from a cadaver dog handler, which the defendant challenged on the grounds of reliability and potential prejudice. The court found the testimony admissible, noting the handler's extensive qualifications and the corroborative circumstantial evidence.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that pretrial publicity created a hostile sentiment that would prevent a fair trial. The court also upheld the admission of the cadaver dog evidence, finding it met the reliability and relevance standards under Rule 702 and Daubert. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, including the defendant's erratic behavior, false statements, and physical evidence linking him to the crime. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. McCauley" on Justia Law

Kyle John Schober was convicted of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver after a traffic stop revealed marijuana, THC extract, and cocaine in his vehicle. He was sentenced to one-to-fifteen years imprisonment, suspended in favor of five years of probation, with conditions including drug treatment and random drug screens.Schober later obtained a medical cannabis identification card under the West Virginia Medical Cannabis Act and sought to modify his probation conditions to allow the use of medical cannabis. The Circuit Court of Berkeley County denied his initial motion, finding insufficient evidence of a valid PTSD diagnosis and treatment. Schober filed a renewed motion with additional documentation, but the court again denied the motion, questioning the validity of his medical cannabis card and finding that his use of cannabis would not support his rehabilitation or community safety.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the West Virginia Cannabis Act does not supersede West Virginia Code § 62-12-9, which allows courts to impose conditions on probation, including prohibiting the use of marijuana. The court found no conflict between the statutes and concluded that probation conditions can restrict otherwise lawful conduct to support rehabilitation and public safety. Additionally, the court noted that Schober's possession of marijuana would violate federal law, specifically the Controlled Substances Act, and thus violate the conditions of his probation under West Virginia Code § 62-12-9(a)(1). View "State of West Virginia v. Schober" on Justia Law

Stephen Cross, the defendant in the underlying action, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Randolph County from enforcing its order denying the State’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with murder and using a firearm during the commission of a felony. The State’s motion to dismiss asserted that Cross’s actions were justified by self-defense and that there was no evidence to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court denied the motion, reasoning that the case must proceed to trial to avoid public misconception and because a grand jury had returned the indictment.Previously, the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorney recused himself due to a conflict of interest, and the court appointed Brian Hinkle as special prosecuting attorney. Hinkle later sought to withdraw, citing a conflict of interest and his belief that prosecuting Cross would result in a manifest injustice. The court allowed Hinkle to withdraw and appointed John Ours as the new special prosecutor. Ours filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, citing insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court denied this motion, emphasizing the need for a jury trial to address public perception and the grand jury’s indictment.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted the writ of prohibition in part, finding that the circuit court clearly erred and exceeded its legitimate powers by denying the State’s motion to dismiss. The court held that when the State seeks a dismissal and the defendant consents, the court must determine whether the dismissal is consistent with the public interest in the fair administration of justice. A dismissal meets this standard if the State acts in good faith at the time it seeks dismissal. The court found that the State acted in good faith and that the circuit court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the prosecution. The writ was denied in part regarding the circuit court’s orders sealing certain documents and precluding public discussion of the case. View "State ex rel. Cross v. Wilmoth" on Justia Law

In 2001, Barry White was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his four minor stepchildren. The children did not testify at trial due to their young age and psychological evaluations indicating they were not capable of doing so. Instead, their statements were admitted through the testimony of professionals who had interviewed them. White was sentenced to a minimum of 100 years in prison. His direct appeal and several habeas corpus petitions were denied.White filed a new habeas petition in 2017, claiming newly discovered evidence. He presented transcripts of interviews with three of the now-adult victims, who either denied remembering the abuse or stated it did not happen. The Circuit Court of Mercer County granted White's petition, finding that the new testimonies constituted recantations and warranted a new trial.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court noted that the circuit court's analysis was overly simplistic, focusing mainly on the fact that the victims did not testify at the original trial. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough analysis of the credibility and reliability of the recantations, considering the victims' prior inconsistent statements and the other evidence presented at trial, such as physical evidence of abuse and White's incriminating jail letters.The Supreme Court found that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 53-4A-7(c). The court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a detailed analysis of the newly discovered evidence in accordance with the established legal standards. View "Frame v. White" on Justia Law

In September 2020, Child Protective Services removed twelve-year-old Z.S. and her siblings from their home due to domestic violence allegations against their stepfather, Michael J. In May 2021, Z.S. disclosed to her aunt and therapist that Michael J. had sexually abused her. Subsequently, Michael J. was indicted on multiple sexual offense charges, including second-degree sexual assault and incest. During the trial, the prosecution relied heavily on Z.S.'s testimony, as there was no physical evidence. Michael J. denied the allegations and testified in his defense, supported by his wife, who claimed he was never alone with Z.S. However, Z.S.'s sister contradicted this, stating they were often left alone with him.The Circuit Court of Fayette County allowed the prosecution to ask potential jurors during voir dire if they would convict Michael J. based solely on Z.S.'s testimony if they found it believable. All potential jurors agreed. Michael J. objected, but the court overruled the objection. The jury found Michael J. guilty on all charges, and he was sentenced to 61 to 145 years in prison. Michael J. appealed, arguing that the voir dire question was improper and prejudiced the jury.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and concluded that the prosecution's voir dire question was an improper commitment question. It violated Michael J.'s constitutional right to an impartial jury by asking jurors to pledge to convict based on the victim's testimony alone, without considering the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that this likely prejudiced the jury and reversed the lower court's decision, remanding the case for a new trial. View "State of West Virginia v Michael J." on Justia Law

In 1989, Johnny Miller was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting of his girlfriend, Lorelei Reed. Miller claimed the shooting was accidental and that he was intoxicated at the time. The State offered a plea deal for second-degree murder, which Miller's trial counsel advised against, leading Miller to reject the offer. Miller was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without mercy.Miller's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and his subsequent habeas corpus petitions were denied. In his first habeas petition in 1993, Miller argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for advising him to reject the plea offer. The Circuit Court of Raleigh County denied relief, finding that trial counsel's performance was not deficient. This decision was upheld on appeal. In 2002, Miller filed another habeas petition, again claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court found the claim barred by res judicata but also concluded on the merits that trial counsel's performance was not deficient.In 2012, Miller filed his fifth habeas petition, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lafler v. Cooper, which addressed ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. The Circuit Court of Raleigh County granted relief, finding that Lafler represented a change in the law that allowed Miller's claim to proceed despite previous denials.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that Lafler did not represent a change in the law that would affect Miller's case because West Virginia already recognized the right to effective counsel during plea negotiations. The court found that previous rulings correctly applied the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and that Miller's claim was barred by res judicata. View "Frame v. Miller" on Justia Law