Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Dorothy Douglas died from severe dehydration not long after leaving Heartland Nursing Home, where she stayed for nineteen days. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Douglas’s estate, brought claims of negligence, violations of the West Virginia Nursing Home Act (NHA), and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendants, several corporate entities related to Heartland. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded $11.5 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that the NHA was not governed by the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), and due to a lack of evidence that the pre-suit requirements of the MPLA were met, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $1.5 million award is vacated; (2) the circuit court erred in recognizing a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a nursing home, and therefore, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $5 million award is vacated; and (3) the punitive damages award is reduced proportionate to the reduction in compensatory damages. Remanded. View "Manor Care Inc. v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married and had three minor children. After Mother and Father divorced, the family court ordered that Father’s parents should have visitation with the children every other Saturday. Mother appealed, asserting that the family court erred in granting grandparent visitation. The circuit court refused Mother’s petition for appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the family court exceeded its authority under the West Virginia Grandparent Visitation Act when it awarded visitation with the children to the grandparents; and (2) the circuit court continued the legal error in refusing Mother’s petition for appeal. Remanded for entry of an order denying grandparent visitation rights to the grandparents. View "Alyssha R. v. Nicholas H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner, Gary Lee Rollins, was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Teresa Rollins. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner waived the right to challenge the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury during closing arguments; (2) the circuit court did not err by refusing to strike a certain juror for cause during voir dire and by failing to strike a juror upon discovering that the juror was a former client of the prosecutor; (3) the circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of domestic violence; (4) the State’s presentation of three medical expert witnesses did not constitute cumulative evidence that prejudiced Defendant; and (5) Defendant did not preserve for appeal his argument that he was subjected to unfair surprise when one of the State’s medical expert witnesses testified in a manner inconsistent with his report. View "State v. Rollins" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into an agreement with two writings drafted by U-Haul of West Virginia. The first writing was a rental contract signed by the three plaintiffs. The second writing was a rental contract addendum that was not signed. The addendum contained a provision requiring that any disputes between the parties be arbitrated and was not made available to U-Haul customers prior to their execution of the rental contract. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against U-Haul for breach of contract and false advertising, among other claims. U-Haul sought to compel Plaintiffs to resolve their claims in arbitration, arguing that the addendum was incorporated by reference into the signed rental contracts, and thus, U-Haul was allowed to enforce the arbitration provision. The circuit court denied U-Haul's motion to compel arbitration. U-Haul then filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a writ of prohibition to set aside the circuit court order that refused to compel Plaintiffs to participate in arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the addendum was not incorporated by reference into the signed rental contracts.View "State ex rel. U-Haul Co. of W. Va. v. Zakaib" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery and conspiracy and sentenced to serve fifty-two to sixty years in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court issued a Memorandum Decision holding Defendant's appeal in abeyance to permit the circuit court to enter an order on the issues of whether the Drug Enforcement administration (DEA) properly issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Defendant's cellular phone records and whether the DEA properly released that information with members of the police department. On remand, the circuit court entered an amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's amended order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the police department acted improperly toward the DEA in obtaining Defendant's phone records; (2) Defendant had no constitutionally protected legitimate expectation of privacy in his phone records, and thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply in this case; and (3) Defendant did not have standing to question the validity of the subpoena in a state court proceeding.View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Charleston Gazette filed an action against the superintendent of the state police under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking the disclosure of public records from the state police concerning its internal review of complaints made against state police officers. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the information sought by the Gazette was statutorily exempt from disclosure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that none of the information sought by the Gazette was subject to disclosure. Remanded to the circuit court to review the disputed documents and to determine what information was subject to disclosure under the FOIA. View "Charleston Gazette v. Smithers" on Justia Law