Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully sending or causing to be sent and/or possessing material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of W. Va. Code 61-8C-3(a), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err by (1) excluding expert testimony regarding the impact of Defendant's Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; (2) denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment or disqualify the prosecutor’s office; (3) determining that Defendant's recorded statement to law enforcement was voluntary; and (4) allowing testimony from the State's digital forensic computer analyst. View "State v. Delorenzo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court resentencing Petitioner, for purposes of this appeal, to an aggregate term of incarceration of five to twenty-five years for her convictions for child neglect resulting in death and gross child neglect creating a risk of substantial injury or death, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court violated her right under the Sixth Amendment to conflict-free counsel and that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose certain records. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that even if counsel's performance was deficient, the deficient performance did not adversely affect the outcome of the trial; and (2) there was no merit in Petitioner's contention that a Brady violation occurred in this case. View "State v. A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence that law enforcement discovered her minor child in Petitioner's home after the child absconded from her grandparents' supervision, holding that there was no error.Petitioner entered a conditional plea to one count of child concealment. At issue on appeal, was the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence that her child, who had been adjudicated as a status offender for truancy and placed in a temporary guardianship with her grandparents, was discovered in her home after escaping from her grandparents' supervision five months prior. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the officers had a reasonable belief that the child lived with Petitioner at her apartment and was within the residence at the time they entered; and (2) therefore, there was no error in the circuit court's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress. View "State v. Pennington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(b), holding that the circuit court properly denied the motion as untimely.Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate W. Va. Code 61-5-8(g)(1) and one count of accepting a bribe in violation of W. Va. Code 61-5A-3. Petitioner later filed a first and then a second motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b). The circuit court denied the first motion on the merits and found that her second motion was not timely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's ruling that Petitioner's second motion seeking to reduce her sentence was not timely because it was filed more than 120 days after her sentencing hearing. View "State v. Keefer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court finding that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial for his alleged crimes, holding that the circuit court did not err.Petitioner was indicted on two counts of soliciting a minor via a computer and one count of use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor. After two experts evaluated Petitioner the circuit court determined that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in regarding to Petitioner's competency determination pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-3. View "State v. Weister" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the adjudicatory and dispositional orders of the circuit court in this termination of parental rights case, holding that the circuit court erred when it terminated Father's parental rights because Father did not receive proper notice of the hearing at which he was purportedly adjudicated.The circuit court terminated Father's parental rights for allegedly abandoning his infant son. Father proposed two assignments of error claiming that he was denied an adjudicatory hearing for a determination whether the child had been abuse and/or neglected as alleged. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding (1) Father did not receive proper notice that the hearing at issue was an adjudicatory hearing from him, and without such notice, Father was not provided due process; and (2) without first holding an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court could not lawfully proceed to disposition and termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction of one count of death of a child by a parent, custodian, or guardian by child abuse but reversed the determinate sentence of one hundred years imposed by the circuit court and remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that the circuit court erred in part.On appeal, Petitioner challenged the circuit court's ruling that W. Va. Code 61-8D-2a(c) permits the imposition of a determinate sentence within a range of fifteen years to life. The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner's sentence, holding that the 2017 amendment to the statute established an indeterminate sentence. The Court remanded the case for the circuit court to impose an indeterminate sentence as statutorily required. View "State v. Tusing" on Justia Law