Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The petitioner, David Hunter Lewis, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia, of second-degree murder and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The incident occurred on December 15, 2020, when the petitioner shot the victim, Dylan Harr, after an argument at an apartment. The petitioner claimed the shooting was accidental, while the State argued it was intentional. The petitioner was sentenced to concurrent forty- and ten-year terms of imprisonment.In the lower court, the petitioner moved to suppress statements made to police, arguing they were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The circuit court ruled that statements made after the petitioner signed a waiver of rights at the police station were admissible, despite his earlier invocation of the right to remain silent at the time of his arrest. The petitioner also filed post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of character evidence about the victim, which the circuit court denied.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the State's introduction of extensive character evidence about the victim, which was irrelevant to the petitioner's guilt or innocence, constituted plain error. The court held that this error affected the petitioner's substantial rights and seriously impacted the fairness of the trial. The court also addressed the admissibility of the petitioner's statements to police, concluding that the circuit court did not err in admitting the statements made after the petitioner signed a waiver of rights at the police station. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the petitioner's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Andrew Miller was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia, of wanton endangerment, malicious wounding, and felony possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The jury also found him to be a recidivist felon, leading to a life sentence with the possibility of parole. The case arose from an incident where Miller allegedly shot Anthony Goard during a dispute over drugs at Niesha Dotson’s apartment. Miller claimed that another individual, J.T., was the actual shooter.At trial, the State presented testimony from Dotson and Goard, both of whom had used drugs at the time of the incident. Dotson testified about a disagreement over drugs between her and Miller, while Goard identified Miller as the shooter but initially told hospital staff he did not know who shot him. The State also introduced a 9 millimeter firearm with Miller’s DNA, although Goard identified a different firearm as the one used in the shooting. Miller testified in his defense, asserting that J.T. shot Goard and that he left the scene to avoid being implicated due to his parole status.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case, focusing on Miller’s claim that his constitutional right to silence was violated. The court found that the circuit court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine Miller about his post-arrest silence, which was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that this improper questioning directly prejudiced Miller’s defense, as it suggested to the jury that Miller fabricated his story about J.T. being the shooter.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated Miller’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the constitutional error was not harmless and affected the jury’s verdict. View "State of West Virginia v. Miller" on Justia Law

The case involves Chad M. Eldredge, who was convicted of one count of second-degree sexual assault against his stepdaughter, G.Y., and sentenced to ten to twenty-five years in prison. G.Y. alleged multiple instances of sexual assault by Eldredge, which occurred when she was between twelve and seventeen years old. The allegations included inappropriate touching, oral sex, and the use of a sex toy. Eldredge denied all allegations, claiming they were fabricated by G.Y. as retribution for his criticism of her boyfriend and her mother's refusal to let the boyfriend move in.The Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia, initially reviewed the case. During the trial, the court allowed the State to question R.E., G.Y.'s mother, about pending fraud charges related to her use of her sister's credit card to fund Eldredge's jail account. The court also questioned R.E. about her decision to give vibrators to G.Y., which R.E. claimed was to prevent G.Y. from engaging in sexual activities with boys. Eldredge was acquitted of fourteen other counts, including additional charges of sexual assault, sexual abuse by a parent or guardian, and incest.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred by allowing questioning about R.E.'s pending criminal charges, which violated West Virginia Rule of Evidence 609, and by questioning R.E. in a manner that prejudiced her credibility, violating Rule 614(b). The Supreme Court of Appeals held that these errors were not harmless, as they impacted the credibility of a crucial defense witness and the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court reversed Eldredge's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Eldredge" on Justia Law

Monica Hartwell was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Michael Walker on her front porch. On the day of the incident, Walker, who had mental health issues, was loudly ranting on the porch. Hartwell apologized to her neighbors for the disturbance and returned home. Shortly after, a gunshot was heard, and Walker was found dead on the porch. Hartwell had gone inside the house and remained there until police arrived. Upon her arrest, Trooper Weikle asked her, "where's the gun?" to which she responded, "it's on the couch."The Circuit Court of Mercer County denied Hartwell's motion to suppress her statement to Trooper Weikle, ruling it admissible as routine, on-the-scene questioning for officer safety. Hartwell was subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to forty years in prison. She appealed, arguing that her statement was inadmissible because it was made during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and was also inadmissible hearsay.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that Hartwell was in custody when questioned but found that the public safety exception to Miranda applied. The court held that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to public safety outweighs the need for Miranda warnings. The court determined that Trooper Weikle's question was necessary to secure officer and public safety, given the immediate need to locate the weapon. The court also rejected Hartwell's hearsay argument, noting that her statement was admissible as an admission of a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "State v. Hartwell" on Justia Law

Lawrence Davonn Foye was placed on court-supervised parole after being convicted of fleeing in a vehicle with reckless indifference. His parole conditions included not violating any laws, avoiding disreputable persons, and abstaining from drug use. In January 2023, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his parole, alleging three violations: using marijuana, being charged with first-degree murder, and associating with a disreputable person. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County revoked his parole and imposed the underlying sentence.The Circuit Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the parole violations. Detective Adkins testified about the murder investigation, corroborating information from a cooperating witness with cell phone data and video footage. The court also noted that Foye did not contest the allegations of drug use and associating with a disreputable person. The court applied the "reasonable cause" standard from West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) to revoke Foye's parole.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The court clarified that the standard of proof for a final parole or probation revocation hearing under West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that the State met this standard by presenting sufficient evidence of all three parole violations. The court also addressed the procedural due process requirements, ensuring that Foye's rights were protected during the revocation process. View "State v. Foye" on Justia Law

In 2021, Scott Michael Andrew Hundley fatally stabbed Thomas Cekada Jr. after an altercation. Hundley claimed self-defense, stating that Cekada had brandished a firearm at him twice, once at a Dollar General store and later during a car collision on Mountain Mission Road. Hundley was indicted for first-degree murder by the Jefferson County Grand Jury.The Circuit Court of Jefferson County held a pre-trial hearing where Hundley’s motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement was denied. The court found that Hundley’s statement about needing a lawyer was equivocal and that he was not in custody at the time. The court also granted the State’s motion to exclude evidence of Cekada’s drug use, ruling it irrelevant without expert testimony linking the drugs to irrational behavior. The court denied the State’s request to introduce evidence of Hundley’s prior stabbing incident under Rule 404(b).At trial, the State presented testimony from officers and witnesses, including evidence that Cekada’s hands were bloody but his firearm was not. Hundley testified, reiterating his self-defense claim. The court allowed the State to argue in rebuttal that the lack of blood on the firearm disproved Hundley’s self-defense claim. The jury found Hundley guilty of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison, including a recidivist enhancement.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of the toxicology report and text messages about Cekada’s drug use. The court also upheld the circuit court’s control over closing arguments and found no prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations. The court affirmed Hundley’s conviction and sentence. View "State v. Hundley" on Justia Law

Brian Allen Merchant Jones was indicted for conspiracy to commit felony controlled substance offenses, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and involuntary manslaughter after he shot and killed his friend, Zackerie Howser, on September 15, 2020. The victim and Jones were involved in drug trafficking, and the shooting occurred shortly after Jones arrived at the victim's home to deliver methamphetamine. Jones pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and involuntary manslaughter but proceeded to trial on the conspiracy and firearm charges.The Circuit Court of Marion County convicted Jones of conspiracy to commit felony controlled substance offenses and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Jones filed post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, which were denied. He was sentenced to fifteen years for conspiracy, ten years for use of a firearm, five years for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and one year for involuntary manslaughter.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the hearsay testimony regarding the victim's statements about drug sales was admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) as statements against interest by an unavailable declarant. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments about Jones's flight during closing arguments, although improper, did not render the trial unfair. The court concluded that the evidence of Jones's involvement in the drug conspiracy and the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony was sufficient to support his convictions. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment and sentencing order. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

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