Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court answered a certified question that a jury's failure unanimously to decide the recommendation of mercy does not allow the circuit court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment required for a conviction of first-degree murder pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-2-2.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and conspiracy to commit murder. After the mercy phase of the bifurcated trial the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to mercy. The court ultimately discharged the jury and certified the question at issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding (1) in a first-degree murder trial, the jury deciding whether the defendant receives mercy must reach a unanimous verdict; and (2) if the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict then the trial court must declare a mistrial and impanel a new jury to determine whether Defendant should receive mercy. View "State v. Reeder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the business court disposing of WW Consultants, Inc.'s (WWC) claims for contractual indemnity in favor of third-party defendants but affirmed in part as to the denial of WWC's claims for implied indemnity and contribution in favor of third-party defendants, holding that the business court erred by granting summary judgment for third-party defendants on this claim.In this case arising from a dispute involving the construction of a wastewater treatment facility in Pocahontas County, WWC, the project's design engineer, appealed the business court's rulings dismissing or granting summary judgment to three third-party defendant contractors who supplied materials for or worked on the project. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) there were material questions of fact that precluded summary judgment as to WWC's contractual indemnity claim; (2) WWC failed to plead or present facts alleging the requisite special relationships to support its implied indemnity claims; and (3) WWC failed to plead contribution claims that are recognized under the modified comparative fault statutory scheme codified at W. Va. Code 55-7-13a to -13d. View "WW Consultants, Inc. v. Pocahontas County Public Service District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the circuit court denying motions to dismiss this tort action brought against correction officers Bryon Whetzel and Isaiah Blancarte and West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOC), holding that the circuit court erred in denying DOC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's negligent training and supervision claim.Plaintiff asserted three claims against the officers, including failure to protect and deliberate indifference, and two claims against the DOC - failure to train and adequately supervise and vicarious liability for the violation of his clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment. In denying Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff alleged sufficient particularized facts to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying the officers' motions to dismiss; (2) did not err in denying DOC's motion to dismiss the vicarious liability count; but (3) erred in denying DOC's motion to dismiss the negligent training and supervision count because the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to deprive DOC of the immunity from suit that otherwise attaches to its discretionary functions of training and supervising employees. View "W. Va. Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Robbins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's conviction of attempted murder in the second degree and other crimes, holding that the principles of double jeopardy were violated by Defendant's convictions for brandishing a deadly weapon and wanton endangerment involving Deputy Coty Pierson.Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of wanton endangerment, one involving Deputy Pierson and the other involving Jeffrey Barnhouse, and brandishing a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) the jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of malicious assault on a law enforcement officer should not be set aside; (2) it was plain error for Defendant to have been convicted and sentenced for brandishing and wanton endangerment of Deputy Pierson because those crimes were lesser included offenses of the offense of malicious assault on a law enforcement officer; and (3) the trial court did not favor the State during Defendant's trial. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's four felony convictions stemming from an incident resulting in a shooting death, holding that the admission of certain evidence prejudiced Defendant, requiring remand for a new trial.At the time of the underlying shooting Defendant was on parole from a previous felony conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, the charges against him included the status offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by refusing to accept his stipulation to his prior felony conviction on the grounds that Defendant offered it during the trial because, in fact, Defendant offered the evidence after the court refused the prosecutor's earlier attempts to obtain the stipulation. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that because the court's refusal permitted the State to admit evidence of the name and nature of Defendant's prior, similar offense, and the admission of this evidence prejudiced Defendant, the circuit court abused its discretion and unfairly prejudiced Defendant by refusing his offered stipulation. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing Petitioner consecutively to a definite term of forty years' imprisonment for first-degree robbery, one to ten years' imprisonment for grand larceny, one to fifteen years' imprisonment for burglary, and one to five years in prison for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit grand larceny, and conspiracy to commit burglary, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Petitioner argued, among other things, that the circuit court committed reversible error during sentencing by admitting testimonial evidence of her prior criminal charge over her objection because the State presented no evidence establishing how the charge related to her current case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting Petitioner's prior criminal charge under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b), and Petitioner did not open the door to the evidence; but (2) the prior-act evidence, while inadmissible, had no prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case and did not warrant a new trial. View "State v. Kessler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father after issuing a ruling adjudicating them as abusive and neglectful, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.The conduct leading to the subject abuse and neglect petition occurred while a Pennsylvania family was at a relative's home in West Virginia. The circuit court exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and temporarily removed the children from the care of their parents. The circuit court adjudicated Parents as abusive and neglectful before contacting Parents' home state of Pennsylvania about jurisdiction. The circuit court entered the adjudicatory order after Pennsylvania declined jurisdiction. The court then entered its order terminating Parents' parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that the limitations of the circuit court's temporary emergency jurisdiction did not permit it to entertain an adjudication of the abuse and neglect petition unless and until Pennsylvania declined jurisdiction. View "In re A.T.-1" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) that would effectively dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed against it by Mary Jane McComas, administratrix of the estate of Deanna McDonald, holding that DCR failed to establish that it was entitled to the writ.McComas, as administratrix of McDonald's estate, sued DCR alleging state law and common law claims and causes of action, including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death. DCR filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint asserted claims sounding in medical professional liability under the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) that could not be brought against DCR. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, after which DCR filed its writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding that the MPLA does not apply to DCR, and therefore, the circuit court did not commit clear error as a matter of law in declining to dismiss the amended complaint. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Division of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Honorable Ferguson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion to intervene in this abuse and neglect case involving their niece, G.G., holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources instituted an abuse and neglect proceeding against G.G.'s mother and father. Ultimately, G.G.'s biological father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights, and G.G.'s mother's parental rights were involuntarily terminated after a hearing. Thereafter, Respondents, G.G.'s foster parents, filed a motion to intervene in the abuse and neglect proceedings seeking to adopt G.G. Petitioners then filed their motion to intervene, seeking permanent placement of G.G. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion and denied Petitioners' motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis to set aside the circuit court's determination. View "In re G.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting Respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction in the circuit court seeking to enjoin Petitioners from creating "any West Virginia Professional Charter School Board-authorized charter schools absent a voter of country residents," holding that Respondents lacked standing to seek the preliminary injunction.House Bill 2012, passed in 2021, created the West Virginia Professional Charter School Board (PCSB) tasked with authorizing and approving public charter schools. Respondents brought this action seeking to prevent the creation of public charter schools without a majority vote of the citizens of the county in which the charter schools would be located. Respondents were granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Governor James Justice and related persons from enforcing HB 2012 in the creation of PCSB-authorized charter schools. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondents lacked standing to seeking the injunction because Governor Justice lacked the ability to authorize public charter schools and because granting injunctive relief does not prevent the PCSB from authorizing public charter schools. View "Blair v. Brunett" on Justia Law