Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 1995, Anstey was convicted first-degree murder, without a recommendation of mercy, in the death of his 81-year-old grandmother during a 1994 fire. There was extensive testimony about Anstey's physical and financial abuse of the victim; both sides presented extensive expert testimony about the cause of the fire. In his 2014 habeas petition, Anstey​ asserted he was entitled to a new trial because the advancement in fire science and arson investigation during the last 20 years constituted newly-discovered evidence which demonstrated the fundamental and unconstitutional unfairness of his trial. The court considered the affidavits of his new fire experts, and the underlying trial record, then denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed. The circuit court’s decision was adequately supported by its 36-page order that recounted the evidence from the trial, over which it presided, and its “careful review” of the parties’ briefs and the new expert affidavits, which led it to conclude that “the relevant facts of the case . . . have been sufficiently and adequately developed” for the court to rule as a matter of law. View "Anstey v. Ballard" on Justia Law

On June 11, 2013, Louk, then 37 weeks pregnant, injected methamphetamine into her arm. A few hours later,. Louk experienced breathing problems and went to Summersville Hospital. Dr. Lester treated Louk and testified that Louk presented to the emergency room with acute respiratory distress which was caused by her methamphetamine use. Due to concerns about the fetus being deprived of oxygen, Dr. Rostocki performed an emergency Cesarean section and delivered the child, Olivia Louk, who was born “essentially brain dead.” Olivia “had no movement, no spontaneous respirations, and they had to immediately put her on a ventilator to help her breathe.” Olivia died 11 days after she was born. Louk was convicted of child neglect resulting in death, W.Va. Code 61-8D-4a [1997], and sentenced to three to fifteen years of incarceration. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed. The child neglect resulting in death statute is not intended to criminalize a mother’s prenatal act that results in harm to her subsequently born child. Recognizing “that there may be significant policy implications and social ramifications surrounding the present issue,” the court confined its review to the plain language of the statute. View "West Virginia v. Louk" on Justia Law

Ervin was charged with first degree murder; use of a firearm to commit murder; stalking; wanton endangerment involving the use of a firearm; and domestic assault, in connection with the 2012 death of Layman. Ervin did not deny he shot the victim, with whom he had previously had an intimate relationship, but argued self-defense. Following a seven-day trial, involving 25 witnesses, the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, wanton endangerment involving a firearm, and first-degree murder using a firearm. . The jury did not recommend mercy with regard to the murder conviction. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder and to a five-year consecutive term for wanton endangerment. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred in: not permitting the jury to visit the site of the alleged offenses; excluding testimony of one defense witness; allowing the jury to consider evidence not presented at trial; allowing the state to misrepresent evidence during closing argument; and not requiring the state to provide a bill of particulars regarding the alleged use of a firearm. The excluded testimony constituted hearsay, not subject to an exception; there was no evidence that the jury actually viewed a video that was not presented. View "West Virginia v. Ervin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner, a registered sex offender, was found guilty of failure to register or provide notice of registration charges. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to a term of years in the penitentiary but suspended the sentence and placed him on a thirty-six month period of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner failed to update the registry as to his current physical address and that this decision was knowingly made; and (2) Petitioner’s argument that the Sex Offender Registration Act’s provision that requires Petitioner to register changes to his registry information is unconstitutionally vague for failing to define the terms “residence” and “address” was unpersuasive. View "State v. Beegle" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and and attempted murder. Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison without mercy for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for a continuance of the trial; (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in excluding certain testimony; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of telephone calls Petitioner made while in jail awaiting trial; and (4) the trial court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a mistrial. View "State v. Dunn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree without a recommendation of mercy. Petitioner filed a post-trial motion for new trial or judgment of acquittal, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting expert opinion testimony from a deputy medical examiner; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the corpus delicti of murder; (3) the circuit court did not err by refusing to dismiss the case based upon the State’s destruction of evidence; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (5) the circuit court did not err in refusing to give three of Petitioner’s proposed jury instructions and with regard to the wording of the jury verdict form. View "State v. Surbaugh" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of twenty counts of possession of material visually portraying a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Petitioner also received a related recidivist conviction. Through a second amended sentencing order Petitioner was sentenced to a total period of incarceration of seventeen years. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it allowed expert opinion testimony concerning the ages of the children depicted in the images; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) Petitioner was not denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when the trial court allowed the State to present hearsay testimony; and (4) Petitioner’s convictions did not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. View "State v. Shingleton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of nine counts of rape, three counts of incest, and eight counts of sodomy for sexually abusing four girls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s pre-trial motion to sever the charges against him, as multiple trials would have resulted in four nearly identical and needless trials; (2) allowing the State to amend the indictment as to the years in which Defendant’s alleged conduct occurred because the amendment was “of form” and not substantial; (3) sentencing Defendant on charges he believed could not have occurred in West Virginia where the jury found that Petitioner committed the criminal conduct in West Virginia; and (4) denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence, as the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Frank S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve counts of wanton endangerment, one count of attempted murder, and one count of fleeing in reckless indifference to the safety of others. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not engage in impermissible participation in the plea bargaining process by, sua sponte, ordering Petitioner to undergo a second evaluation for competency and criminal responsibility prior to presentation of the proposed plea agreement; (2) the trial court did not err in permitting the guilty verdict to stand where there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict that Petitioner was sane at the time of criminal conduct; (3) there was no plain error in the trial court’s decision to uphold the guilty verdict on the attempted murder count; (4) Petitioner’s sentence was proportional; and (5) Petitioner’s remaining claims of error were unavailing. View "State v. Fleming" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. The circuit court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. After unsuccessfully seeking a new trial and review by the United States Supreme Court, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by failing to refusing to dismiss a juror who overheard a threatening remark related to her role as a juror during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) refusing to dismiss the juror after conducting a Remmer hearing; (2) permitting testimony from the victim’s family members during the mercy phase of trial; and (3) deciding not to give an instruction outlining factors for the jury to consider when determining whether to recommend mercy. View "Lister v. Ballard" on Justia Law