Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Wife conveyed real estate to her five adult children without providing notice to Husband during the pendency of the parties’ divorce. The family court ruled that Wife’s conveyance of the subject property without notice to Husband violated W. Va. Code 43-1-2(b) and ordered that the value of the property be included in the calculation of the marital property. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order and reinstated the order of the family court, holding (1) Husband was entitled to statutory notice of the real estate conveyance under the plain language of section 43-1-2(b); and (2) the family court applied the proper remedy for a violation of this notice provision. View "Stanley v. Stanley" on Justia Law

Respondent, a towing service, filed suit against Petitioners, the police department, police chief, and city manager, alleging that Petitioners violated W. Va. Code 24-6-12 by not using the towing rotation list adopted by the county commission. Petitioners sought to dismiss the case on statutory immunity grounds. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss without addressing the issue of immunity. Petitioners requested a writ of prohibition, arguing that they were immune from prosecution based on the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding that Petitioners were entitled to legislative immunity in this case. View "State ex rel. City of Bridgeport v. Judge Marks" on Justia Law

In 2012, nineteen plaintiff families filed a single complaint alleging products liability and negligence claims against Defendants. In 2013, six plaintiff families filed a single complaint also alleging products liability and negligence claims against Defendants. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court referred Plaintiffs as two civil actions to the Mass Litigation Panel. The Panel entered an order that transformed the two civil actions into twenty-five separate actions. Plaintiffs sought a writ of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the order on the grounds that the Panel did not have the authority to alter their status as two civil actions. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the Panel did not have the authority to separate the cases. View "State ex rel. J.C. v. Judge Mazzone" on Justia Law

After a trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of threatening to commit a terrorist act. Petitioner appealed the denial of his post-trial motions to dismiss or, alternatively, to acquit, arguing (1) the criminal offense set forth in W. Va. Code 61-6-24(b) is unconstitutionally vague, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed the offense of threatening to commit a terrorist act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 61-6-24(b) is free from constitutional defect; but (2) because the threat prosecuted by the State in this case was not aimed at a branch or level of government, but solely at an individual police officer, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Defendant committed the felony offense at issue. View "State v. Yocum" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources filed a petition for abuse and neglect, alleging that Father had repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted F.S., his daughter. The circuit court dismissed the petition for abuse and neglect, concluding that the facts did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of abuse by Father due to inconsistencies in F.S.’s allegations and in Mother’s statements regarding the sexual abuse. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based upon all the evidence presented, the circuit court erred in dismissing the petition and finding lack of clear and convincing evidence that Father abused F.S. Remanded for entry of an order adjudicating F.S. and her brother Z.S. as abused children based upon the sexual abuse perpetrated upon F.S. by Father. View "In re F.S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to prison for one to ten years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) allowing the theft of property taken from three purses to be treated as a single occurrence to support the grand larceny indictment, as the theft of property from different owners at the same time and place may constitute one larceny; and (2) using non-fair market value to establish the value of stolen items, as the owner of stolen property may offer evidence of its value, at the time and place of the crime, based upon the property’s fair market value as well as the purchase price replacement cost, or the owner’s reasonable belief as to its value. View "State v. Jerrome" on Justia Law

Defendant opened a number of fraudulent accounts in her daughter’s name beginning when her daughter was fourteen years old, resulting in her daughter’s credit rating being ruined. Defendant pled guilty to eight counts of identity theft, was sentenced to an effective five-year prison term, and was ordered to pay restitution to six financial institutions and to her daughter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s sentencing order, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) sentencing Defendant to prison instead of placing her on probation or home confinement; and (2) ordering her to pay $10,000 in restitution to her daughter. View "State v. Rebecca F." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree for entering a Wendy’s restaurant and attempting to obtain money by holding a machete against the throat of a restaurant employee. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence of forty years in the penitentiary, holding (1) Defendant’s confession to the police was properly admitted at trial, as it was not given in violation of Defendant’s right to counsel, and the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary; and (2) the employee’s in-court identification of Defendant was properly admitted at trial. View "State v. Blackburn" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea to one count each of identity theft relating to a bail agreement, misdemeanor simple possession, and misdemeanor DUI. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the identity theft counts in the indictment because the criminal bail agreement and the affidavit of eligibility for appointed counsel did not, according to Defendant, constitute financial transactions under the provisions of W. Va. Code 61-3-54. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the criminal bail agreement was a financial transaction as contemplated by section 61-3-54. View "State v. Soustek" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married when C.R. was born in 2001. Mother and Father later divorced. In 2004, Father was convicted of first degree sexual abuse and, at the time of this opinion, was serving probation. Mother and C.R. had been living continuously with Stepfather since 2006. Mother and Stepfather married in 2010 and subsequently filed a petition for adoption to permit Stepfather to adopt C.R. Father refused to consent to the adoption. The circuit court denied the adoption on the grounds that “the biological father has not abandoned the minor child.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the elements of the statutory presumption of abandonment set forth in W. Va. Code 48-22-306 were satisfied in this case, neither Father’s consent to the requested adoption nor his relinquishment of his parental rights was required. Remanded. View "In re Adoption of C.R." on Justia Law