Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In December 2020, Gavin Smith's grandfather discovered Smith's mother, stepfather, and two younger brothers shot to death in their home. Smith, who was sixteen at the time, was later found at his girlfriend's grandmother's house and arrested. Smith's girlfriend, Rebecca Walker, was also charged but entered a plea agreement to testify against Smith in exchange for a reduced sentence.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County transferred Smith from juvenile to adult criminal jurisdiction. A grand jury indicted him on four counts of first-degree murder and four counts of using a firearm during a felony. During the trial, Walker testified about her plea deal and the events of the murders. Smith's counsel cross-examined her about the life sentence she avoided, leading to a court instruction clarifying that Smith would be eligible for parole after fifteen years due to his age at the time of the crime.The jury convicted Smith of three counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, and one count of using a firearm during a felony. The court sentenced him to three life terms with mercy plus fifty years, all to run consecutively.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. Smith argued that the circuit court erred by informing the jury about his parole eligibility, which prejudiced the jury. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the circuit court's instruction on parole eligibility was improper and prejudicial. The court held that outside the context of cases involving a recommendation of mercy, it is improper to inform the jury about sentencing possibilities. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated Smith's convictions and the circuit court's sentencing order, remanding the case for a new trial. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves Deliezha Davonte Gravely, who was pulled over by a police officer for speeding. During the stop, the officer discovered that Gravely was driving with a revoked license due to a DUI and found a loaded firearm in his pocket. Gravely was subsequently indicted on multiple charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a concealed firearm by a prohibited person, based on his prior conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery.The Circuit Court of Mercer County ruled that Gravely's prior conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery qualified as a "felony crime of violence against the person of another" under West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(b). Gravely was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in classifying his conspiracy conviction as a crime of violence.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the elements of conspiracy under West Virginia Code § 61-10-31 include a violent act against a person. The court applied the elements test from State v. Mills, which requires examining the statutory elements of the predicate offense rather than the specific conduct of the defendant. The court found that the elements of conspiracy—an agreement to commit an offense and an overt act to effect the conspiracy—do not require a violent act against a person.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery is not a "felony crime of violence against the person of another" for the purposes of West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(b). Consequently, the court reversed Gravely's convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a concealed firearm by a prohibited person, and remanded the case for resentencing on his remaining convictions. View "State v. Gravely" on Justia Law

In the early morning of June 28, 2014, Ms. Taylor Hawkridge was shot and killed in the parking lot of her apartment complex. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a man in a hooded sweatshirt fleeing the scene and entering a dark Dodge Charger. Ms. Hawkridge had a verbal altercation with Nasstashia Van Camp Powell at Vixens Gentlemen’s Club, where she worked. Ms. Powell, after being convicted of second-degree murder, implicated Richard Small and Joseph Mason in the murder, stating they were paid to kill Ms. Hawkridge because she was a police informant. Mr. Small was interviewed by law enforcement multiple times, including a June 2018 interview where he ambiguously mentioned needing a lawyer.The Circuit Court of Berkeley County held a joint trial for Mr. Small and Mr. Mason. Mr. Small filed motions to exclude evidence of Mr. Mason’s gang affiliation and to suppress his June 2018 statement, arguing he had invoked his right to counsel. The court denied these motions, finding the gang affiliation evidence intrinsic to the crimes and Mr. Small’s statement ambiguous. The jury convicted Mr. Small of conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life without parole.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Mr. Small argued his constitutional rights were violated by his and his counsel’s absence from critical-stage hearings, the admission of prejudicial evidence, the failure to sever his trial from Mr. Mason’s, the denial of his motion to suppress, and improper comments by the State during the mercy phase. The court found no error, holding that the hearings were not critical stages for Mr. Small, the evidence was intrinsic and relevant, Mr. Small did not properly move to sever, his statement was not an unequivocal request for counsel, and the State’s comments did not constitute plain error. The court affirmed Mr. Small’s convictions and sentence. View "State v. Small" on Justia Law

In the early morning of June 28, 2014, Ms. Taylor Hawkridge was shot and killed in her apartment complex parking lot. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a man in a hooded sweatshirt fleeing the scene in a dark Dodge Charger. Ms. Hawkridge had a verbal altercation with Nasstashia Van Camp Powell at her workplace, Vixens Gentlemen’s Club, the night before. Ms. Powell, who was later convicted of second-degree murder, implicated Joseph Mason and Richard Small in the murder, stating they were paid to kill Ms. Hawkridge because she was a police informant.The Circuit Court of Berkeley County sentenced Mr. Mason to life imprisonment without mercy for first-degree murder and a consecutive term of one to five years for conspiracy. Mr. Mason appealed, arguing that the court erred in admitting a photograph of a social media post without proper authentication, allowing evidence of his gang and drug affiliations, permitting hearsay testimony, failing to sever his trial from Mr. Small’s, and denying him a fair trial through cumulative error.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found no error. The court held that the photograph of the Instagram post was properly authenticated through distinctive characteristics and testimony. The evidence of Mr. Mason’s gang and drug affiliations and his dislike of informants was deemed intrinsic to the charged crimes, providing necessary context. The court also found that Ms. Linton’s testimony about Ms. Powell’s prior consistent statements was admissible to rebut charges of recent fabrication. Mr. Mason’s argument for severance was waived as it was not raised in the lower court. Finally, the court found no cumulative error, as none of the individual claims had merit. The court affirmed Mr. Mason’s convictions and sentence. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law

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