Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree, nighttime burglary, and conspiracy. At issue in this case were two plea deals offered by the State. The first was a pre-trial offer and the second was a post-conviction offer regarding a recidivist action. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by giving erroneous advice before trial and by failing adequately to prepare him for his trial testimony. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner could not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. View "Raines v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging Caleb Toparis with the misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault and domestic battery. Toparis filed a motion to dismiss the information, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated because he had not been tried on the charges within one year of the execution of the warrant. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from dismissing the two misdemeanor charges against Toparis, contending that the circuit court erred in finding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial was not violated in this case. View "State ex rel. Sorsaia v. Hon. Stowers" on Justia Law

Donal Bowers was charged with alleged sex crimes against an eleven-year-old girl. The assistant prosecutor filed a motion in limine to obtain an advance ruling on the admissibility of the diary of the alleged victim. The circuit court concluded that the statements within the diary were admissible under hearsay rules. The court, however, excluded a certain two-page entry, reasoning that the statements, though relevant to the prosecution’s case and probative of the crimes of which Bowers was charged, presented an unacceptable risk of improperly inflaming the jury. Furthermore, the circuit court ruled that photocopies of the diary entries and illustrations would be substituted in place of the diary itself. The prosecutor filed this petition for extraordinary relief challenging the exclusion ruling and the substitution ruling. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ as mounded, holding (1) the circuit court manifestly erred in excluding the substantive two-page entry at issue; but (2) the circuit court’s ruling relating to the manner in which the diary should be presented to the jury was not manifestly in error. View "State ex rel. Games-Neely v. Hon. Gray Silver III" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the second degree and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree. Defendant was effectively sentenced to not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) allowing the State to present an expert witness on the issue of Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate intoxication; (2) not allowing Defendant to introduce evidence or question a State witness on what activity took place immediately prior to the victim going into the house where she was allegedly assaulted; (3) allowing the jury to consider both second degree sexual assault and third degree sexual assault based on the evidence; and (4) allowing the bailiff to have a conversation with a juror about a potential witness. View "State v. Wakefield" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and two counts of sexual assault. Petitioner’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the results of new DNA testing that excluded Petitioner as either a primary or secondary sperm contributor. The circuit court denied relief. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose an exculpatory DNA report it possessed more than six weeks prior to the final plea hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State’s failure to disclose favorable DNA test results obtained six weeks prior to Petitioner’s plea hearing violated Petitioner’s due process rights, and the error was prejudicial. View "Buffey v. Ballard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy, attempted murder, and malicious wounding. The Supreme Court affirmed with one exception, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Petitioner’s convictions; (2) the circuit court did not admit unfairly prejudicial evidence during the mercy phase of Defendant’s bifurcated trial; (3) Petitioner failed to prove misconduct with regard to an alleged pre-deliberation conversation among jurors during trial; but (4) the circuit court abused its discretion by unduly restricting Petitioner’s opportunity to attempt to prove his claim that a juror communicated with the surviving victim during trial recesses. Remanded for an additional post-trial hearing on the single issue of juror misconduct. View "State v. Jenner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fleeing in a vehicle, possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), and possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine). Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence a police officer discovered upon searching Defendant’s vehicle, arguing that no probable cause existed for either the traffic stop or the subsequent search. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and resultant sentences and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and therefore, the circuit court erred by not suppressing the evidence found during that search. View "State v. Noel" on Justia Law