Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing Petitioner consecutively to a definite term of forty years' imprisonment for first-degree robbery, one to ten years' imprisonment for grand larceny, one to fifteen years' imprisonment for burglary, and one to five years in prison for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit grand larceny, and conspiracy to commit burglary, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Petitioner argued, among other things, that the circuit court committed reversible error during sentencing by admitting testimonial evidence of her prior criminal charge over her objection because the State presented no evidence establishing how the charge related to her current case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting Petitioner's prior criminal charge under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b), and Petitioner did not open the door to the evidence; but (2) the prior-act evidence, while inadmissible, had no prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case and did not warrant a new trial. View "State v. Kessler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's four felony convictions stemming from an incident resulting in a shooting death, holding that the admission of certain evidence prejudiced Defendant, requiring remand for a new trial.At the time of the underlying shooting Defendant was on parole from a previous felony conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, the charges against him included the status offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by refusing to accept his stipulation to his prior felony conviction on the grounds that Defendant offered it during the trial because, in fact, Defendant offered the evidence after the court refused the prosecutor's earlier attempts to obtain the stipulation. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that because the court's refusal permitted the State to admit evidence of the name and nature of Defendant's prior, similar offense, and the admission of this evidence prejudiced Defendant, the circuit court abused its discretion and unfairly prejudiced Defendant by refusing his offered stipulation. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's partial denial of habeas relief.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree robbery and malicious assault. Petitioner's later-filed petition for writ of habeas corpus asserted sex general grounds for relief with various bases. The habeas corpus court granted Petitioner's request for credit for time served on home confinement pending appeal but otherwise denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the habeas corpus court's denial of relief. View "Sowards v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder and sentencing him to a determinate term of forty years following a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in not granting Defendant's motion for a mistrial because of two instances in which the State made references to Defendant's pre-trial silence after finding that the references did not violate Defendant's right against self-incrimination because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) there was no error in the jury instructions; (3) Defendant failed to show that there were errors in the empanelment of the jury; and (4) there was no cumulative error in this matter. View "State v. Hoard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, holding that the circuit court erred in refusing to admit the mother's prior conviction as impeachment evidence pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 609, and the error was not harmless.The four-month-old victim suffered permanent and life-altering injuries as a result of non-accidental trauma. In his defense, Defendant sought to introduce evidence that two years earlier the mother had been convicted in Virginia of felony child endangerment for refusing to provide nutrition and medical care to her six-month-old child. The circuit court excluded the evidence under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) and refused to admit it for impeachment purposes under Rule 609. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court clearly erred in excluding the evidence of the mother's prior felony conviction; and (2) the error was reversible, entitling Defendant to a new trial. View "State v. Michael C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court resentencing Petitioner to eighty years of incarceration in connection with his conviction for first-degree robbery, holding that the sentencing court plainly erred by failing to follow W. Va. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(1) when sentencing Petitioner.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the sentence imposed by the circuit court was disproportionate to his crime and that the circuit court failed to make particularized findings to justify the sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order without reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims, holding (1) the plain language of Rule 32(b)(1) requires that the sentencing court receive and consider a presentence report before sentencing unless certain conditions are met; and (2) the sentencing court in this case erred by sentencing Petitioner without meeting all the conditions listed in Rule 32(b)(1). View "State v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to life in prison pursuant to the habitual criminal statute, W. Va. Code 61-11-18, holding that the circuit court did not err.After Petitioner was convicted of one count of fleeing in a vehicle with reckless disregard the State filed an information charging him as a recidivist with three felony convictions. Thereafter, the legislature amended the habitual criminal statute, making the changes effective on June 5, 2020. The circuit court applied the 2020 version of the recidivist statute and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly applied the 2020 version of W. Va. Code 61-11-18 rather than the 2000 version of the statute; and (2) the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crimes Petitioner committed. View "State v. Horton" on Justia Law

West Virginia Code of State Rules 64-10-8, “Blood Analysis; Standards and Methods,” sets forth the standards and methods the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health has established to ensure the accuracy of blood tests administered to determine the amount of ethyl alcohol in a person’s blood. In 2020 the West Virginia Supreme Court unanimously concluded (Corley) that absent evidence that a diagnostic blood test complied with the requirements of Rule 64-10-8, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was justified in discounting the accuracy of any blood test results for purposes of an aggravated DUI enhancement.In two cases, the circuit courts affirmed the OAH finding that absent evidence that the blood diagnostic was performed in compliance with the Rule, the OAH was justified in assigning no weight to the results for purposes of an aggravated enhancement. The Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles appealed. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, declining to overrule Corley. The court rejected an argument that the diagnostic test results are entitled to a presumption of accuracy since they were included in the administrative record before the OAH and were not rebutted. View "Frazier v. Powers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Circuit Court of Monongalia County seeking clarification as to the application of the "hit-and-run statute," W. Va. Code 17C-4-1, pertaining to vehicle crashes concerning death or personal injuries and the obligations and duties of an individual involved in the crash as set forth in this opinion.Specifically, the Court answered (1) the Legislature's 2010 amendment of section 17C-4-1 did not create ambiguity in the statute; (2) to be criminally responsible for a violation of subsections 17C-4-1(a) and (d), a defendant's vehicle need not have made direct physical contact with the other vehicle or person whose death was proximately caused by the crash; and (3) the determination of whether a defendant was "involved in a crash" for purposes of subsections 17C-4-1(a) and (d) is a question of fact. View "State v. McClain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on the charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under W. Va. Code 61-7-7(a)(3), holding that Defendant's argument that the statute was so ambiguous that it was unconstitutionally vague on its face could not succeed.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to violating section 61-7-7(a)(3), which makes it unlawful for any person who is "an unlawful user of...any controlled substance" to possess a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face because it does not define "unlawful user" of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not argue or show that section 61-7-7(a)(3) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct of possessing a firearm while regularly using marijuana, he lacked standing to assert the claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face. View "State v. Wilfong" on Justia Law