Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Tony Myers was convicted of three counts of first degree robbery and was sentenced to three concurrent terms of incarceration of sixty years each. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) allowing the admission of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless arrest, search, and seizure; (2) permitting witnesses called by the State to identify Petitioner despite being subjected to a prior identification procedure; (3) charging, trying, and convicting Petitioner of three counts of robbery; and (3) denying Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal or a new trial based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. View "State v. Myers" on Justia Law

In the underlying action in this case, Respondent Michael Brown was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. Respondent filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the circuit court set aside the convictions and granted Respondent a new trial. The basis of the circuit court's ruling was that a juror in the criminal trial failed to answer certain questions during voir dire. The court concluded that in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Dellinger, the juror's lack of candor deprived the circuit court and the parties of the ability to determine the juror's fitness to serve, which foreclosed Respondent's constitutional right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the relevant statutory and case law and the material from the habeas corpus proceedings and the criminal trial, the circuit court committed reversible error in granting Respondent a new trial. Remanded. View "Coleman v. Brown " on Justia Law

Petitioner, the executrix of the estate of Henry Cline, filed a complaint against Respondent, Dr. Kiren Kresa-Reahl, alleging that Respondent negligently failed to advise the decedent of the availability of certain medications to treat his stroke. Prior to filing her complaint, Petitioner refused to provide a pre-suit screening certificate of merit pursuant to the pre-suit requirements of the Medical Professional Liability Act. Petitioner asserted that her claim fell within the exception to such requirements as an "informed consent" claim. The circuit court disagreed, ruling that Petitioner's complaint did not state a recognized informed consent claim and that, therefore, her failure to provide a screening certificate of merit warranted dismissal without prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in applying the plain language of the statute and caselaw in dismissing the case without prejudice. View "Cline v. Kresa-Reahl " on Justia Law

After the State Tax Commissioner (Tax Department) appraised Century Aluminum of West Virginia's aluminum plant, Century Aluminum objected to the valuations. The Jackson County Commission sitting as a Board of Equalization and Review advised the company that it would not make any adjustment to the Tax Department's valuations. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) upholding the Tax Department's policy of how it considers functional obsolescence and economic obsolescence for categories of assets other than machinery and equipment; and (2) ruling that the Tax Department's policy of artificially limiting its consideration of obsolescence to a fifty percent reduction in the case of machinery and equipment complied with the requirement that property be valued at fair market value. View "Century Aluminum of W. Va., Inc. v. County Comm'n" on Justia Law

Karen Tanner appealed an order the circuit court that granted her parole with the condition that she not be in the presence or accompaniment of anyone convicted of a felony, including her husband. Tanner contended (1) the circuit court was without authority to grant parole insofar as parole is an executive function, and (2) the condition that she not associate with her husband was an unreasonable burden on her right of marriage. After discussing the reasons for imposing parole conditions, including the aim of reducing recidivism, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the West Virginia Home Incarceration Act imparts authority to circuit courts to grant parole under the conditions specified therein; and (2) the circuit court properly exercised its discretion and did not act in an unreasonable, capricious, or arbitrary manner when it imposed upon Tanner's parole the condition that she not associate with her husband. View "State v. Tanner" on Justia Law

Tyrone Crouch was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced by the circuit court to ten years imprisonment. Crouch appealed, contending that the circuit court improperly instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because of the clearly inconsistent and confusing definition of involuntary manslaughter given by the trial court, it was not certain that the jury understood how they could reach a verdict on that lesser included offense; and (2) the Court was unable to determine independently from the record that the inconsistent instructions were harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Crouch" on Justia Law

The West Virginia Office of Tax Appeals rejected the challenge of ConAgra Brands, Inc. to assessments for unpaid corporation net income tax and business franchise tax. The assessments were imposed on apportioned royalties ConAgra received from the licensing of its intangible trademarks and trade names for use through the United States, including West Virginia. In setting aside the decision of the Office of Tax Appeals, the circuit court held that ConAgra's licensing transactions did not constitute doing business in West Virginia and that the assessments failed to meet the requirements of the due process and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The State Tax Commissioner sought reinstatement of the assessments for corporation net income tax and business franchise tax. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court, holding that the order setting aside the decision of the Office of Tax Appeals and invalidating the assessments should not be disturbed. View "Griffith v. Conagra Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners, David and Shirley Finch, appealed from an order entered by the circuit court, which granted summary judgment to Defendant, Inspectech, LLC. The circuit court concluded that, by signing the parties' inspection agreement, which contained a clause entitled "unconditional release and limitation of liability," the Finches had released Inspectech from liability for any defects it failed to report in its inspection of the house the Finches planned to, and ultimately did, purchase. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Inspectech was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the terms of the parties' inspection agreement and the release language therein because anticipatory releases contained in home inspection contracts are void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of the State. View "Finch v. Inspectech, LLC" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from an order entered by the circuit court affirming a family court order, which modified primary residential custody of the parties' minor child from Mother to respondent Father. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that based upon the parties' written submissions and oral arguments, the record designated for the Court's consideration, and the pertinent authorities, the circuit court's affirmation of the custodial decisions made by the family court should be reversed and the transfer of custody should be stayed. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing to consider what custodial arrangement would promote the best interests of the child. View "Brittany S. v. Amos F." on Justia Law

Bobby Messer, a lineman, came into contact with an energized electric transmission line and suffered severe injuries. Petitioners, Bobby and Amanda Messer, filed a complaint alleging that several defendants, including Hampden Coal Company, acted with deliberate intent, resulting in the injury to Bobby. Petitioners settled with or voluntarily dismissed all parties except Hampden. Before trial, Petitioners moved to strike a prospective juror for cause because he had stated opinions that potentially conflicted with those of the Petitioners' electrical engineering expert and possessed such professional education and experience in the field of electrical engineering that his presence upon the jury would have caused his opinions to unduly influence the jury's deliberations on the case's central issue. The circuit court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict for Hampden. The court subsequently denied Petitioners' motion for a new trial based on the court's refusal to strike the prospective juror for cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's decision to deny Petitioners' motion to excuse the potential juror for cause did not constitute an abuse of discretion, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Petitioners' motion for a new trial View "Messer v. Hampden Coal Co., LLC" on Justia Law