Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Shane Marcum, who was being held on felony charges, allegedly sustained injuries during a cell extraction. Marcum filed a civil action against the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (the Regional Jail). The proceeding was removed to federal court. During the federal court proceeding, Marcum requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of a videotape that recorded his cell extraction. The Regional Jail refused to turn over the videotape, arguing that it was exempt under W. Va. Code 29B-1-4(a)(2) and (19). Marcum then filed a complaint for preliminary injunction and declaratory relief against the Regional Jail seeking a court order requiring the regional Jail to produce the cell extraction videotape. The circuit court entered an order requiring the Regional Jail to turn over the videotape to Marcum. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) pursuant to section 29B-1-4(a)(19), disclosure of a videotape of the cell extraction of an inmate is prohibited; and (2) therefore, the circuit court committed clear error in ordering the disclosure of the cell extraction videotape. View "W. Va. Regional Jail & Correctional Facility v. Marcum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. The jury refused to recommend murder, and the circuit court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for a change of the trial venue; (2) the circuit court did not commit reversible error by denying Petitioner’s motion to present evidence of the victim’s prior bad acts pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that the murder was premeditated. View "State v. Zuccaro" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of receiving or transferring stolen property, daytime burglary, and conspiracy to transfer or receive stolen property. The circuit court entered an order indicating that Petitioner, along with two co-defendants, was jointly and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $46,592. Petitioner appealed, challenging the circuit court’s determination of restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court thoroughly evaluated Petitioner’s financial situation in ordering her restitution payment; but (2) because Petitioner’s co-defendants were never held jointly and severally liable with Petitioner, this matter must be remanded for evaluation of the issue of the monetary restitution to be paid by Petitioner. View "State v. Bagent" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of four counts of first degree sexual assault, five counts of first degree sexual abuse, and nine counts of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust to a child. Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of 216 to 705 years and fifty years of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed a pro se motion for a writ of habeas corpus asserting twenty-three grounds for relief. the circuit court denied relief. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying its denial of relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not comply with the statutory obligation to articulate its reasons for denying Petitioner relief on each of the grounds asserted in his habeas petition. Remanded. View "Watts v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted on a felony charge of possession of child pornography. Petitioner was initially found not competent to stand trial. Later, the circuit court held a hearing regarding Petitioner’s competency. The court concluded that Petitioner’s alleged crime of attaining and viewing images of children engaged in sexual acts via his computer was a crime involving “an act of violence against a person” within the meaning of W. Va. Code 27-6A-3(h) and ordered that Petitioner remain under its jurisdiction until the expiration of his maximum sentence or until he attained competency and the charges were resolved. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) distributing and exhibiting material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct is a crime that involves an act of violence against a person within the meaning of section 27-6A-3(h); and (2) therefore the circuit court is justified in maintaining jurisdiction over him pursuant to the statute. View "State v. Riggleman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, A.N.T. pleaded no contest to discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling. The magistrate court accepted the plea agreement. Thereafter, A.N.T., who was seeking to obtain an Ohio teaching certificate, petitioned the circuit court to order expungement of her criminal records relating to her criminal conduct. The circuit court ordered expungement, finding that extraordinary circumstances justified expunging A.N.T.’s criminal records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court had no authority, by statute or its inherent power, to order expungement of A.N.T.’s criminal records. View "In re Petition of A.N.T. for Expungement of Records" on Justia Law

After a joint jury trial, Petitioners, Antwyn Gibbs and Kevin Goodman, were convicted of first degree robbery, entry of a dwelling, and conspiracy to commit a felony. Through these consolidated appeals, Petitioners sought reversal of their convictions and sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Gibbs of first degree robbery; (2) Goodman’s sentence of fifty years incarceration for first degree robbery was proportionate to his crime; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion and took the appropriate factors into consideration in denying Petitioners’ respective motions to sever their trials. View "State v. Gibbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of attempted first degree murder, malicious assault, kidnapping, domestic assault and domestic battery. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and additional consecutive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting evidence of a previous domestic violence incident under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the circuit court did not commit err in failing to exclude a late-disclosed Facebook printout and by failing to grant a mistrial after the victim referred to blood on the print during her testimony at trial; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a judgment of acquittal regarding attempted first degree murder; (4) the circuit court did not err by failing to dismiss or set aside the kidnapping conviction; and (5) Petitioner's claim that he was denied a fair trial because the jury panel included only one African-American was more appropriately a subject within the scope of a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury did not recommend mercy. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not commit reversible error by (1) denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress his confession; (2) denying Petitioner’s motions in limine concerning forensic samples collected by the medical examiner; (3) admitting evidence that Petitioner contended should have been excluded by W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); and (4) denying Petitioner’s motion to bifurcate the trial into separate guilt and mercy phases. View "State v. Farley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that she was entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erred in allowing a police officer to improperly testify as a lay witness regarding historical cell site data and because the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred in permitting the officer to testify about historical cell site data as a lay witness, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) any objections Defendant had to the statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument were waived by her failure to object at trial. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law