Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea to first degree robbery. His guilty plea was conditioned upon an appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the circuit court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in permitting the State to use evidence obtained from Petitioner's home pursuant and subsequent to a warrantless search and seizure because the search was valid, as the police the police had reasonable grounds to believe that if an immediate arrest were not made, Petitioner might, during the time necessary to procure a warrant, endanger the safety of others. View "State v. Farley" on Justia Law

The warden of a correctional complex appealed the decision of the circuit court vacating a conviction entered against Respondent for one count of sexual assault in the first degree, one count of child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, and one count of incest, and awarding him a new trial. As grounds for its decision to grant Respondent relief on his habeas corpus petitions, the circuit court cited three errors committed by the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of habeas corpus, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in granting a new trial to Respondent without the proper demonstration that Respondent's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated by the giving of one particular instruction; (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling that the limitation of character witnesses to four was constitutionally deficient; and (3) the circuit court erred in funding the evidence was insufficient to convict Respondent of the rape of the victim. View "McBride v. Lavigne" on Justia Law

This case involved the appeal of Petitioner of her sentence of life without mercy imposed in the circuit court by order, as recommended by the jury which found Petitioner guilty of first degree murder. Petitioner assigned four errors committed by the trial court, including the admission of the decedent's statements, failure to give a Harden instruction, failure to give a good character instruction, and the failure to suppress one of Petitioner's statements to the police. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the court did not err in admitting the statements of the decedent; (2) the court's decision to admit the statement was not an abuse of discretion; but (3) under the limited circumstances of this case, the court erred in failing to give a proper good character instruction. View "State v. Surbaugh" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second degree sexual assault, incest, detaining with intent to defile, and conspiracy. Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court (1) erred by allowing the State to admit in its case in chief eight pornographic file names obtained during a search of his personal laptop computer, (2) erroneously applied the Rape Shield statute in refusing to allow him to admit into evidence a notebook maintained by the victim, and (3) erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of his illegal drug and alcohol use. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial, holding (1) the court committed reversible error by failing to fully evaluate the admissibility of pornographic file names pursuant to a McGinnis hearing; and (2) the court erroneously applied the Rape Shield statute in refusing to allow Petitioner to admit the victim's notebook into evidence. Remanded. View "State v. Jonathan B." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the second degree murder of his former girlfriend. Defendant appealed, submitting several assignments of error. The State conceded error with regard to two of those assignments but argued that the errors were harmless. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) it was constitutional error under the Confrontation Clause for the trial court to admit into evidence the autopsy report and to permit the chief medical examiner for the State to testify as a surrogate witness in place of the deputy assistant medical examiner, who conducted the forensic investigation into the circumstances of the victim's death; and (2) the error was not harmless, as the State failed to demonstrate that the autopsy finding and conclusions did not contribute to the verdict. View "State v. Frazier" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the offense of escape from custody. Thereafter, Petitioner appealed his conviction pursuant to the sentencing order of the circuit court, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to this offense because his act of leaving home confinement only amounted to a violation of pre-trial bail condition rather than an escape from custody or confinement. Petitioner further argued that the lower court erred by ordering him to pay restitution to the State for costs associated with apprehending him following his unauthorized departure from home confinement. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Petitioner's conviction, holding that Petitioner effectively waived or forfeited his right to appeal his conviction by failing to enter a conditional guilty plea or otherwise preserve the matter for review; and (2) reversed the imposition of restitution, holding that the restitution provisions of the Victim Protection Act do not extend to recovery of costs or expenses incurred by governmental agencies in apprehending perpetrators of criminal acts. View "State v. McGill" on Justia Law

After Petitioner's dog, a Rotweiller mix, attacked Respondents' two-year-old daughter, causing serious injuries, Respondents brought a civil suit under W. Va. Code 19-20-20 against Petitioners requesting that the magistrate court order Petitioners' dog killed, alleging that the dog was vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other people. The county magistrate court ordered the dog killed. The circuit court affirmed. Petitioners appealed, arguing that section 19-20-20 does not provide a mechanism by which parties may bring a civil suit to have a dog destroyed. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the circuit court's order, holding that section 19-20-20 does not authorize a civil suit seeking destruction of a dog. View "Durham v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

As a result of a criminal investigation, Petitioner and others were arrested at Petitioner's home. Petitioner was prosecuted in federal court. The State filed a petition for forfeiture of the property owned by Petitioner. Petitioner later pleaded guilty to several drug offenses. The State then filed a summary judgment motion in the forfeiture action, which the circuit court granted. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment and its determination that the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions were not violated. Because the Court was unable to assess whether the forfeiture of Petitioner's real property in this case violated the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the case was remanded for further development of the record. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Respondent was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. The circuit court subsequently granted Respondent habeas corpus relief, finding that Respondent's counsel in his second trial was ineffective. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in (1) ruling that it was constitutional error for the trial court to fail to advise Respondent of his right to testify and not to testify and that trial counsel's failure to enforce this right rose to the level of ineffectiveness; and (2) determining that Respondent's co-defendant was not a credible witness. View "Ballard v. Hurt" on Justia Law

Through means of a writ of prohibition, Petitioner, a county prosecuting attorney, sought to prevent the enforcement of the order of the circuit court dismissing one count of felony murder from the indictment returned against James Sands. In dismissing the count, the trial court took the position that a co-perpetrator, Sands, could not be found guilty of felony murder where the intended victim of a burglary was the person who caused the death of a co-perpetrator, Dakota Givens. The Supreme Court found no error in the circuit court's decision to dismiss the felony murder count and therefore denied the writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court correctly found that the offense of felony murder does not encompass the death of a co-perpetrator caused by the intended victim of a burglary attempt. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Circuit Court (Fox) " on Justia Law