Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner The Lincoln Journal, Inc. sought a writ of prohibition against the Honorable Jane Hustead, to prevent an order to compel the revelation of alleged confidential and First Amendment privileged news sources and news gathering materials. Respondents Timothy Butcher and Bobby Adkins filed suit against the Journal alleging that eleven news articles that reported on the 2008 Lincoln County Primary Election were defamatory. These articles reported an ongoing investigation into alleged campaign law violations, including allegations that election laws were violated by individuals who funneled or received thousands of dollars in support of candidates backed by Dan Butcher. The circuit court ordered production of the Journalâs sources. Petitioner asserted that if forced to produce the privileged documents, the resulting breach of confidentiality and exposure of the news gathering materials would be severe and irreparable. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the case, and found that the circuit court erred by compelling the Journal to reveal its sources and news gathering materials. The Court granted the writ of prohibition, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Three cases were consolidated for appeal. All cases challenged the constitutionality of West Virginia Code 62-12-26, which provides for a period of extended supervision after the release of certain sex offenders from custody. While the particular arguments of the appellants varied, the collective basis for challenging the statute as facially unconstitutional on both federal and state grounds was that the statutory provisions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violated due process rights, and served to subject a person to double jeopardy. Upon completion of its review of the arguments, relevant statutes, applicable case law and commentary, the Supreme Court concluded that West Virginia Code 62-12-26 is not facially unconstitutional on these grounds. Furthermore, the Court found “no breach of constitutional principle or abuse of discretion in the application of the statute.” Accordingly, the orders from the courts in West Virginia v. James, West Virginia v. Hedrick and West Virginia v. Daniels are affirmed. View "West Virginia v. James, West Virginia v. Hedrick, West Virginia v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Anthony Juntilla appealed his convictions of first degree murder, sexual assault and conspiracy. Defendant was accused of the assault, beating and stabbing death of his girlfriendâs one-year-old daughter. The circuit court ordered Defendantâs sentences to run consecutively. Defendant challenged his convictions and sentences on multiple grounds, the majority being procedural errors at trial that lead to him being wrongly convicted. After a thorough review of the lower courtsâ records, the Supreme Court found no errors at trial. The Court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict him of the charges against him. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendantâs convictions and sentences.

Petitioner The Galloway Group (Galloway) is a partnership of lawyers with an office in West Virginia. Galloway entered into an agreement with Respondents Fredeking & Fredeking Law Offices, LC (Fredeking) wherein the parties agreed to share attorney fees generated in litigation. Fredeking filed a complaint against Galloway in Wyoming circuit court, alleging that Galloway failed to pay under the agreement. Galloway responded in the Wyoming courts, arguing that Wyoming was not the proper venue for the dispute. After a hearing, the Wyoming court denied Gallowayâs motions, and concluded that the dispute could move forward in Wyoming. Galloway sought a writ of prohibition from the West Virginia Supreme Court to prevent the Wyoming court from enforcing its order. Upon review, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that Wyoming was indeed improper venue, and it granted Galloway and writ for prohibition. Consequently, the Wyoming action was dismissed.

Commissioner Joe E. Miller, on behalf of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, appealed an order by the circuit court that reversed his final order that revoked Petitioner Edward Simsâs driverâs license. Mr. Sims was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Commissioner Miller argued that the circuit court did not give substantial weight to all of the evidence presented against Mr. Sims. Upon review of the courtâs records, the Supreme Court agreed with Commissioner Miller that the circuit courtâs conclusions were in error. The Court reversed the order of the circuit court and reinstated Commissioner Millerâs order revoking Mr. Simsâ license.

Two cases were consolidated by the Supreme Court. In each of the underlying cases, the Petitioners sought relief in the form of writs of mandamus and prohibition. The Supreme Court found that the financial affidavits required for proceeding in forma pauperis were properly filed in each case. The Court found that the magistrate courts in each of the cases failed to perform a ânon-discretionary dutyâ by requiring the posting of an appeal bond in one case, or the payment of a filing fee in the other. The Supreme Court found that the requested writs of mandamus should be granted as moulded.

Appellant Mickey Justice and Appellee Dawn Palmer (now Lacy) had a child out of wedlock. The baby was born prematurely, and as a result, suffered from neurological and other health problems that were characterized as âspecial needs.â Appellant was served with a paternity suit in 2005. He counter-petitioned admitting paternity, and sought custodial rights as the childâs biological father. Specifically, Appellant wanted regular and enforceable parenting time with the child. Following a hearing, the parties agreed that Appellant would take training classes on the proper care of a special needs child, and that on successful completion of the training, Appellant would be awarded regular visitation on the weekends. The training was held inside the childâs home, meaning, Appelleeâs home. Appellant filed a motion of contempt with the court citing difficulty he had in completing the training, since it was effectively at Appelleeâs discretion as it took place at her home. Appellee refused on multiple occasions to allow additional visitation. Appellant sought to modify his parenting time with the child in light of the training difficulties, but the family court denied his motion. On appeal, the circuit court did not reverse the family courtâs rulings, but did not grant Appellant the additional parenting time he sought. The Supreme Court held that certain orders of the family court were too vague for Appellant to follow so that he would be in compliance. The vague orders were a violation of Appellantâs constitutional right of due process. Accordingly, the Court reversed the orders of the lower courts, and remanded the case with instructions for further proceedings.