Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of child neglect resulting in death and two counts of gross child neglect creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or of death. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions, holding (1) the indictment, which charged Petitioner with child neglect causing injury, did not result in the trial court imposing an illegal sentence on Petitioner for child neglect resulting in death because the indictment provided Petitioner with enough information to defend against the charge of child neglect resulting in death; and (2) the evidence at trial was clearly sufficient to convict Petitioner of child neglect creating a substantial risk of bodily injury. View "State v. Chic-Colbert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of second degree sexual assault and sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten to twenty-five years in prison. Petitioner appealed, alleging several assignments of error. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the circuit court erred by allowing the State to question the victim regarding Petitioner's sexual history, as the victim's answers, which attacked Petitioner's reputation and character as an alleged sexual predator, constituted the type of character evidence that is barred by W. Va. R. Evid. 404(a). View "State v. Maggard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple felonies, including first degree murder. Defendant appealed, arguing primarily that the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself, thus depriving him of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. Specifically, Defendant contended that the trial court failed to make him aware of the disadvantages of self-representation or to make sufficient inquiries to assess whether Defendant's decision to proceed pro se was knowingly and intelligently made. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Petitioner to represent himself. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree in violation of W. Va. Code 61-2-1 and arson in the first degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and five years imprisonment for the arson conviction. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the first degree murder conviction; (2) section 61-2-1 is not unconstitutionally vague; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (4) Defendant's argument that the trial court erred when it denied his post-trial motions was without merit. View "State v. Horn" on Justia Law

After drinking and getting into an argument with his wife, Goins shot a gun at a vehicle in which his wife’s brother and his family were seated. He was convicted of five counts of misdemeanor brandishing and sentenced to five consecutive one-year terms of incarceration. The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed in part, on a Double Jeopardy claim. The trial court erred in sentencing Goins for five counts of brandishing, when only a single incident of breach of the peace was established. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. View "State of West Virginia v. Goins" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery and convicted to a term of incarceration of ten to twenty years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in admitting testimony solicited by the prosecution because the statements did not amount to an improper reference to Defendant's silence post-Miranda warning; (2) did not err in allowing W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence of a second uncharged bank robbery; (3) did not violate Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by permitting a police officer to testify about statements made by a witness who did not take the stand at trial because the statements were not introduced to inculpate Defendant and were not testimonial; and (4) did not err in finding that the investigating officer's affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant. View "State v. Bruffey" on Justia Law

The grand jury returned an indictment against Defendant charging Defendant with several sexual offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress statements to police officers during an interrogation. Before the interrogation, Defendant requested that counsel be appointed to him after his arraignment. Before he had an opportunity to confer with his counsel, however, Defendant was approached by a police officer and asked to sign a waiver of his right to counsel. Defendant signed the waiver and then made inculpatory statements to the police. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the interrogation was not conduct in violation of Defendant's right to counsel pursuant to Montejo v. Louisiana. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court faced the question of whether it would follow its existing precedent or adopt the conclusions of the U.s. Supreme Court in Montejo. The Supreme Court reversed after declining to adopt Montejo, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to suppress the inculpatory statements made by Defendant. Remanded. View "State v. Bevel" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction on appeal, holding (1) Petitioner relinquished the right to have the jury instructed on the issue of self-defense in the manner he argued on appeal; (2) Petitioner waived his right to claim error in the admission of a prior statement given by Petitioner's son to the police; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (4) the substantial rights of Petitioner were not affected by improper remarks by the prosecutor, and accordingly, there was no plain error; and (5) the circuit court did not err in denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court committed error by failing to grant Defendant's motion to strike a prospective juror for cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion. In so holding, the Court took the opportunity to overrule State v. Phillips, which permitted a new trial whenever a criminal defendant used a peremptory strike to remove a prospective juror that should have been struck for cause, holding (1) a trial court's failure to remove a biased juror from a jury panel does not violate a criminal defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury if the defendant removes the juror with a peremptory strike; and (2) to obtain a new trial for having used a peremptory strike to remove a biased juror from a jury panel, a criminal defendant must show prejudice. View "State v. Sutherland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy and sentenced to life in prison without mercy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in determining that Defendant's statement to law enforcement should not be suppressed because the prompt presentment statute had not been violated; (2) did not deny Defendant's due process rights when it denied counsel's motion to withdraw based on an asserted conflict of interest, as there was no actual conflict, and Defendant waived the alleged conflict of interest claim; and (3) did not deny Defendant's right to a fair trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct due to the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, as the prosecutor's remarks neither clearly prejudiced Defendant nor resulted in manifest injustice. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law