Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Decedent died intestate as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner, the former spouse of Decedent, sought a share in the settlement proceeds from a wrongful death action based on her monthly receipt of payments from Decedent for a child support arrearage. The circuit court ruled that Petitioner was not entitled to a portion of the subject settlement funds because Petitioner could not demonstrate she was financially dependent on Decedent at the time of trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in ruling that Petitioner was not entitled to a share of the wrongful death settlement proceeds, as Petitioner's receipt of monthly arrearage payments was not sufficient to demonstrate the statutory requirement of financial dependence. View "Ellis v. Swisher" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of uttering one Federal Reserve note and of possession with intent to utter eight counterfeit Federal Reserve notes. In common language, these notes are referred to as twenty-dollar bills. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that Defendant's conduct was prohibited by West Virginia law, as (1) a "note" as that term is used in W. Va. Code 61-4-3 includes Federal Reserve notes issued by the Federal Reserve System, and a Federal Reserve note issued by the Federal Reserve System is a note of a "banking institution" as that term is used in section 61-4-3; and (2) a "forged bank note" as that term is used in W. Va. Code 61-4-6 includes Federal Reserve notes issued by the Federal Reserve System. View "State v. Moffit" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seventeen counts of felony and misdemeanor sexual offenses. Defendant did not file an appeal until he was resentenced. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by (1) allowing the indictment to be amended, (2) allowing the State to call a witness that was not named on the witness list, and (3) allowing the State to recall a witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the amendment to the indictment; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness not previously on the witness list to testify, as defense counsel's preparation or presentation was not damaged by the late disclosure; and (3) Defendant failed to preserve and adequately brief the issue of the State recalling a witness during the State's case-in-chief. View "State v. Larry A. H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of sexual assault in the first degree, seven counts of sexual abuse by a custodian or parent, and one count of conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing primarily that his confrontation and due process rights were violated because he was not permitted to let the jury know that the complaining witness, R.M., had made various statements that sexual misconduct had been perpetrated against her by individuals other than Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) given the age and history of R.M. and the specificity of her statements relating to Defendant, the exclusion of Defendant's evidence regarding R.M.'s reports and statements of sexual misconduct committed against her by others was within the trial court's discretion; and (2) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree against a minor. Defendant appealed, contending that the circuit court erred by allowing the victim to testify that Defendant assaulted her more than ten or twelve times. Defendant did not object to this testimony at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court did not plainly err in permitting the prosecutor to introduce, through the victim's testimony, evidence pertaining to Defendant's other, extraneous bad acts against the victim, as the evidence challenged by Defendant was intrinsic evidence, inextricably intertwined with the acts charged in the indictment. Accordingly, the evidence did not fall under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b)'s limitations on admissible evidence. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant was on supervised release from federal custody when he pleaded guilty to second degree robbery in state court. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend that any sentence imposed by the circuit court run concurrent to any federal sentence imposed by the U.S. district court for violation of his supervised release. After the circuit court sentenced Defendant, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his guilty plea was defective because it contained a promise - that his state and federal sentences would run concurrently - which was not fulfilled. The circuit court denied the petition. While Defendant's appeal was pending, Defendant was paroled from the West Virginia Department of Corrections and was no longer in the custody of the State. At the time of this appeal, Defendant was in federal custody. The Court was informed that federal authorities credited Defendant for the time he served in State custody. Thus Defendant's state and federal sentences were effectively served concurrent to each other. The Supreme Court declared the instant appeal moot, as Defendant was no longer in State custody and had obtained the relief he sought. View "Leeper-El v. Hoke" on Justia Law

Petitioner was hired by Employer as a general laborer to work on a pipeline project. When some unsecured pipe struck Petitioner in the back, Petitioner sustained back and other injuries. Petitioner subsequently applied for and received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Employer subsequently refused to rehire Petitioner, and petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation benefits. Thereafter, Petitioner filed the instant action claiming workers' compensation discrimination and alleging that Employer acted with "deliberate intention" to cause Petitioner's injury. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer. Petitioner appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Employer acted with deliberate intention to cause Petitioner's injury and whether Employer refused to rehire Petitioner in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment for Employer, as (1) Petitioner failed to demonstrate the statutory predicate for a deliberate intention claim; and (2) Petitioner failed to adduce prima facie evidence giving rise to a genuine issue of material fact with regard to his claim of workers' compensation discrimination. View "Smith v. Apex Pipeline Servs." on Justia Law

Wife and Husband were divorced by order of the family court. Adopted into the final divorce order was an agreed parenting plan under which Mother was the primary custodial parent. After Father relocated to Pennsylvania, the parties were unable to reach an agreed-upon modification of the parenting plan. The primary dispute involved the transportation of the child for the purposes of Father's visitation. The circuit court found the parties had a "de facto" parenting plan under which Father was to provide all transportation for the child for purposes of visitation. In so finding, the circuit court reversed the final order of the family court, which provided that the parties share responsibility in the transportation of the child to facilitate Father's parenting time. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court committed error in finding that Mother was to be given deference to all parenting plan decisions. Remanded. View "Todd M.S. v. Julie M.G." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a verbal agreement entered into by Contractor and Landowner to construct a subdivision on a parcel of land. Disagreements arose between the parties, and the subdivision was never completed. Landowner filed this action against Contractor asserting Contractor had failed to make payments on an endloader that had been purchased for the project. Contractor counterclaimed for unjust enrichment based on excavation services he performed on the property. The jury found in favor of Landowner with regard to the endloader and in favor of Contractor with regard to his counterclaim. The trial court found Contractor was entitled to a prejudgment interest on his award of damages on his unjust enrichment claim. Contractor filed a motion to amend the judgment order, contending that the court erred in determining the date on which prejudgment interest began to accrue and had utilized an incorrect prejudgment interest date. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Contractor's motion to amend the judgment order, holding that the trial court erred by awarding Contractor prejudgment interest instead of allowing the jury to determine whether an award of prejudgment interest was warranted. Remanded. View "Ringer v. John" on Justia Law

An employee of Pullman Power was killed and two of his coworkers were injured as a result of a fire that occurred inside a flue gas desulphurization stack then under construction at the Mitchell Power Plant. The stack was being constructed by Respondents for Petitioners. Plaintiffs, the deceased worker's estate and the two injured workers, brought an action against numerous entities, including Petitioners and Respondents. Petitioners cross-claimed against Respondents, alleging that it was Respondents' negligence in the performance of the contract work being done on the stack that caused the fire. As a sanction for Petitioners' violation of the discovery deadline set by the circuit court in its scheduling order, the circuit court dismissed Petitioners' cross-claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal where (1) Petitioners directly and willfully defied the circuit court's scheduling order, and (2) Petitioners did not indicate any opposition to the circuit court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing. View "Ohio Power Co. v. Pullman Power, LLC" on Justia Law