Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of wanton endangerment and sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence taken from his residence because, under the circumstances, the warrantless search of the residence was allowed under the emergency doctrine exception, and even in the absence of exigent circumstances, the police officers were entitled to conduct a protective search; and (2) the circuit court did not err in allowing the jury to hear testimony regarding the out-of-court identification of Petitioner made by the victim. View "State v. Kimble" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked the driver’s licenses of Respondents following their arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the revocation of Respondents’ driver’s licenses, concluding that the evidence did not establish that Respondents had been lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The circuit court denied the DMV’s petitions for judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the respective DMV orders revoking Respondents’ driver’s licenses, holding that Respondents were lawfully arrested, and the OAH’s findings to the contrary were clearly wrong.View "Dale v. Odum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. Defendant appealed the order of the circuit court denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of potential prejudice to the venire; (2) the State did not commit a discovery violation entitling Defendant to a new trial; (3) the trial court did not err in refusing to find a violation of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 26.2; and (4) the trial court correctly found evidence of the victim’s sex offender status inadmissible.View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a trial, Petitioner was convicted of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than nor more than twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argued that his right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court excluded a defense witness and denied Defendant’s request to inspect the victim’s medical and psychological records. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in excluding the defense witness for failing to comply with the provisions of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12.1 for the disclosure of alibi witnesses; and (2) the trial court correctly denied Petitioner access to the victim’s medical and psychological records because the records did not contain information that would have assisted Petitioner in the defense of his case. View "State v. Schlatman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree for the armed robbery of a gambling parlor. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment as a recidivist. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor did not commit reversible error during closing argument in the robbery trial; (2) a single reference during trial that Defendant terminated his police interview was not reversible error; (3) the recidivist information filed against Defendant was not fatally flawed; and (4) any error by the trial court in allowing the State to introduce a pre-trial photo line-up as an exhibit and by permitting a witness to make an in-court identification of Defendant was harmless. View "State v. Hillberry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing thirty sexual offenses against four minors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial due to opening remarks by the prosecutor because the opening statement issue was not properly preserved; (2) conducted an inadequate McGinnis hearing before admitting evidence of pornographic text messages, but the error was harmless; (3) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to allow discovery of the mental health records of one of the victims, as Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of relevancy and a legitimate need for the records; (4) did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of two witnesses; and (5) did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to amend the indictment.View "State v. Robert R." on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to felony murder pursuant to a plea agreement. The circuit court later conducted a sentencing hearing at which Petitioner and his three co-defendants appeared. During the hearing, the circuit court sentenced Petitioner’s co-defendants to life in imprison with the recommendation that each be eligible for parole after serving fifteen years and sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing order, holding that Petitioner’s role in the murder of the victim clearly justified a sentence disparate from his co-defendants, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a harsher sentence upon Petition than upon his co-defendants.View "State v. Robey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner, Gary Lee Rollins, was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Teresa Rollins. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner waived the right to challenge the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury during closing arguments; (2) the circuit court did not err by refusing to strike a certain juror for cause during voir dire and by failing to strike a juror upon discovering that the juror was a former client of the prosecutor; (3) the circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of domestic violence; (4) the State’s presentation of three medical expert witnesses did not constitute cumulative evidence that prejudiced Defendant; and (5) Defendant did not preserve for appeal his argument that he was subjected to unfair surprise when one of the State’s medical expert witnesses testified in a manner inconsistent with his report. View "State v. Rollins" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery and conspiracy and sentenced to serve fifty-two to sixty years in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court issued a Memorandum Decision holding Defendant's appeal in abeyance to permit the circuit court to enter an order on the issues of whether the Drug Enforcement administration (DEA) properly issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Defendant's cellular phone records and whether the DEA properly released that information with members of the police department. On remand, the circuit court entered an amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the police department acted improperly toward the DEA in obtaining Defendant's phone records; (2) Defendant had no constitutionally protected legitimate expectation of privacy in his phone records, and thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply in this case; and (3) Defendant did not have standing to question the validity of the subpoena in a state court proceeding.View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and criminal conspiracy. The accomplice who shot and killed the victim pled guilty to first degree murder, and as part of his plea agreement, the accomplice testified for the State during Defendant's trial about his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) an accomplice who has entered a plea of guilty to the same crime charged against the defendant may testify as a witness on behalf of the State, but if the jury learns of the accomplice's guilty plea, then, upon the motion of the defendant, the trial court must give a limiting jury instruction; and (2) because Defendant did not preserve any error by objecting or requesting a limiting instruction in this case, the trial court did not plainly err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that the court failed to give a limiting instruction regarding the accomplice's testimony.View "State v. Flack" on Justia Law