Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. Defendant appealed the order of the circuit court denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of potential prejudice to the venire; (2) the State did not commit a discovery violation entitling Defendant to a new trial; (3) the trial court did not err in refusing to find a violation of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 26.2; and (4) the trial court correctly found evidence of the victim’s sex offender status inadmissible.View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The circuit court adjudicated Mother’s two children abused and neglected and awarded Mother a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period. After the conclusion of Mother’s improvement period, the circuit court granted primary custodial responsibility to the children’s father (Father) and granted Mother unsupervised visitation with the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by granting Father primary custody of the children where (1) Mother had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of her improvement period because, in making the final disposition in a child abuse and neglect proceeding, the level of a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of an improvement period is just one factor to be considered; and (2) any delay in awarding unsupervised visitation to permit Mother to demonstrate what she had learned from her improvement period was due to Mother’s own actions, which caused continuing concern for the children’s safety.View "In re B.H." on Justia Law

After a trial, Petitioner was convicted of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than nor more than twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argued that his right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court excluded a defense witness and denied Defendant’s request to inspect the victim’s medical and psychological records. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in excluding the defense witness for failing to comply with the provisions of W. Va. R. Crim. P. 12.1 for the disclosure of alibi witnesses; and (2) the trial court correctly denied Petitioner access to the victim’s medical and psychological records because the records did not contain information that would have assisted Petitioner in the defense of his case. View "State v. Schlatman" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was W. Va. Code 33-6-36, which, in certain circumstances, requires insurance companies to continue motor vehicle liability coverage for a spouse after the death of, or separation or divorce from, the named insured. Francis McComas separated from and then divorced a United Service Automobile Association (USAA) named insured. USAA removed McComas from the named insured’s policy. Seven days after the divorce, McComas lost control of his vehicle and collided with Kimberly Lucas’s vehicle. McComas died in the collision. Lucas, who was seriously injured, filed a lawsuit against McComas’s estate. Plaintiff included a declaratory judgment count against USAA, contending that the USAA motor vehicle policy with McComas’s former spouse provided liability coverage for McComas’s negligence. The circuit court granted judgment for Plaintiff, determining that USAA was required by section 33-6-36 to notify McComas of his right to buy a separate liability insurance policy upon canceling McComas’s liability coverage, and because that notice was not given to McComas, USAA was required to provide liability coverage to McComas’s estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, 33-6-36 required USAA to notify McComas of the termination of his coverage and his right to request a separate policy.View "United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Thomas and Lori Likens filed a complaint against Petitioners in the circuit court, alleging several claims, including the allegation that Skyline had negligently designed and built their manufactured home. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the Likenses were required to file an administrative complaint with the West Virginia Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Board (the Board) as a prerequisite to the filing of their civil complaint. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motion to dismiss, concluding that W. Va. Code 21-9-11a did not require the Likenses to first file an administrative complaint seeking relief with the Board before asserting their claim seeking damages. Petitioners requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing its order. The Court granted the requested writ, concluding that W. Va. Code 21-9-11a(b) requires an aggrieved party to file an administrative complaint with the Board before he or she may file a civil lawsuit for monetary damages. View " State ex rel. Skyline Corp. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree for the armed robbery of a gambling parlor. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment as a recidivist. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor did not commit reversible error during closing argument in the robbery trial; (2) a single reference during trial that Defendant terminated his police interview was not reversible error; (3) the recidivist information filed against Defendant was not fatally flawed; and (4) any error by the trial court in allowing the State to introduce a pre-trial photo line-up as an exhibit and by permitting a witness to make an in-court identification of Defendant was harmless. View "State v. Hillberry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing thirty sexual offenses against four minors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial due to opening remarks by the prosecutor because the opening statement issue was not properly preserved; (2) conducted an inadequate McGinnis hearing before admitting evidence of pornographic text messages, but the error was harmless; (3) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to allow discovery of the mental health records of one of the victims, as Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of relevancy and a legitimate need for the records; (4) did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of two witnesses; and (5) did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to amend the indictment.View "State v. Robert R." on Justia Law

Upon Mother’s divorce from Father, Mother was designated primary custodian of their daughter. When the daughter was seven years old, Mother was arrested upon a charge of child neglect. Mother pleaded guilty to contributing to the neglect of a minor. The family court designated Father as the daughter’s custodian and established a temporary visitation schedule between Mother and the child. The circuit court subsequently (1) sentenced Mother to thirty days in jail and two years of probation, (2) directed Mother to register with the state police pursuant to the West Virginia Child Abuse and Neglect Registration Act (the Act), and (3) reduced Mother’s temporary visitation schedule with the daughter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in requiring Mother to register under the Act; and (2) did not commit reversible error in modifying the temporary visitation schedule established by the family court.View "State v. Kimberly S." on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to felony murder pursuant to a plea agreement. The circuit court later conducted a sentencing hearing at which Petitioner and his three co-defendants appeared. During the hearing, the circuit court sentenced Petitioner’s co-defendants to life in imprison with the recommendation that each be eligible for parole after serving fifteen years and sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing order, holding that Petitioner’s role in the murder of the victim clearly justified a sentence disparate from his co-defendants, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a harsher sentence upon Petition than upon his co-defendants.View "State v. Robey" on Justia Law

In this insurance coverage dispute, an injured electrician sued Morlan Enterprises, Inc. and Paul Kerns, an electrician who subcontracted for Morlan. Kerns, an Ohio resident, was covered under a commercial general liability policy issued by Owners Insurance Company that was obtained in Ohio. Morlan was named on a “Certificate of Insurance Coverage” as an additional insured under the policy, but Owners denied coverage. The circuit court concluded that West Virginia substantive law rather that Ohio substantive law applied to the insurance coverage issue, allowed Morlan to proceed against Owners on a first-party bad faith claim, and prohibited Owners from presenting evidence of the payment of attorney fees sought by Morlan that were paid by another source. Owners subsequently sought a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that it was premature to issue the requested writ based upon the circuit court’s interlocutory order. View "State ex rel. Owners Ins. Co. v. Hon. Warren R. McGraw " on Justia Law