Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves the defendant, Andrew Jackson McCauley, Jr., who was convicted of first-degree murder, death of a child by a custodian, and concealment of a deceased human body. The victim, R.C., a fifteen-year-old girl, lived with her mother, brothers, and the defendant. R.C. was last seen alive on May 7, 2019. Her body was discovered on May 16, 2019, in a rural area. Evidence included blood and saliva found in her bedroom, and circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene, such as drywall mud and roofing screws found near the body and in the defendant's truck.The Circuit Court of Morgan County denied the defendant's motion for a change of venue, finding that an impartial jury could be seated despite pretrial publicity. The court also admitted expert testimony from a cadaver dog handler, which the defendant challenged on the grounds of reliability and potential prejudice. The court found the testimony admissible, noting the handler's extensive qualifications and the corroborative circumstantial evidence.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that pretrial publicity created a hostile sentiment that would prevent a fair trial. The court also upheld the admission of the cadaver dog evidence, finding it met the reliability and relevance standards under Rule 702 and Daubert. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, including the defendant's erratic behavior, false statements, and physical evidence linking him to the crime. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. McCauley" on Justia Law

Kyle John Schober was convicted of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver after a traffic stop revealed marijuana, THC extract, and cocaine in his vehicle. He was sentenced to one-to-fifteen years imprisonment, suspended in favor of five years of probation, with conditions including drug treatment and random drug screens.Schober later obtained a medical cannabis identification card under the West Virginia Medical Cannabis Act and sought to modify his probation conditions to allow the use of medical cannabis. The Circuit Court of Berkeley County denied his initial motion, finding insufficient evidence of a valid PTSD diagnosis and treatment. Schober filed a renewed motion with additional documentation, but the court again denied the motion, questioning the validity of his medical cannabis card and finding that his use of cannabis would not support his rehabilitation or community safety.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the West Virginia Cannabis Act does not supersede West Virginia Code § 62-12-9, which allows courts to impose conditions on probation, including prohibiting the use of marijuana. The court found no conflict between the statutes and concluded that probation conditions can restrict otherwise lawful conduct to support rehabilitation and public safety. Additionally, the court noted that Schober's possession of marijuana would violate federal law, specifically the Controlled Substances Act, and thus violate the conditions of his probation under West Virginia Code § 62-12-9(a)(1). View "State of West Virginia v. Schober" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner, Aaron W., appealed an order from the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA) that dismissed his appeal of a family court order. The family court had disqualified Aaron W.'s attorney from representing him in a divorce proceeding due to a conflict of interest, as the attorney had previously represented both parties in a related personal injury case. The family court's order included language indicating it was a final, appealable order.Initially, Aaron W. sought a writ of prohibition from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to prevent the family court from ruling on the disqualification motion, arguing that the family court lacked jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the writ, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, holding that family courts have the authority to disqualify attorneys in cases of conflict of interest.Aaron W. then appealed the family court's disqualification order to the ICA, which dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order was interlocutory and that it lacked jurisdiction over such appeals. Aaron W. subsequently appealed the ICA's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the ICA's dismissal, holding that the family court's disqualification order was not a final order because it did not terminate the litigation on the merits. The court explained that the ICA generally does not have appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, as specified by West Virginia Code § 51-11-4(d)(8). The court also noted that the family court's inclusion of finality language in its order did not transform the interlocutory order into a final, appealable order. Consequently, the ICA correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Aaron W. v. Evelyn W." on Justia Law

Stephen Cross, the defendant in the underlying action, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Randolph County from enforcing its order denying the State’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with murder and using a firearm during the commission of a felony. The State’s motion to dismiss asserted that Cross’s actions were justified by self-defense and that there was no evidence to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court denied the motion, reasoning that the case must proceed to trial to avoid public misconception and because a grand jury had returned the indictment.Previously, the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorney recused himself due to a conflict of interest, and the court appointed Brian Hinkle as special prosecuting attorney. Hinkle later sought to withdraw, citing a conflict of interest and his belief that prosecuting Cross would result in a manifest injustice. The court allowed Hinkle to withdraw and appointed John Ours as the new special prosecutor. Ours filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, citing insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court denied this motion, emphasizing the need for a jury trial to address public perception and the grand jury’s indictment.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted the writ of prohibition in part, finding that the circuit court clearly erred and exceeded its legitimate powers by denying the State’s motion to dismiss. The court held that when the State seeks a dismissal and the defendant consents, the court must determine whether the dismissal is consistent with the public interest in the fair administration of justice. A dismissal meets this standard if the State acts in good faith at the time it seeks dismissal. The court found that the State acted in good faith and that the circuit court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the prosecution. The writ was denied in part regarding the circuit court’s orders sealing certain documents and precluding public discussion of the case. View "State ex rel. Cross v. Wilmoth" on Justia Law

In 2001, Barry White was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his four minor stepchildren. The children did not testify at trial due to their young age and psychological evaluations indicating they were not capable of doing so. Instead, their statements were admitted through the testimony of professionals who had interviewed them. White was sentenced to a minimum of 100 years in prison. His direct appeal and several habeas corpus petitions were denied.White filed a new habeas petition in 2017, claiming newly discovered evidence. He presented transcripts of interviews with three of the now-adult victims, who either denied remembering the abuse or stated it did not happen. The Circuit Court of Mercer County granted White's petition, finding that the new testimonies constituted recantations and warranted a new trial.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court noted that the circuit court's analysis was overly simplistic, focusing mainly on the fact that the victims did not testify at the original trial. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough analysis of the credibility and reliability of the recantations, considering the victims' prior inconsistent statements and the other evidence presented at trial, such as physical evidence of abuse and White's incriminating jail letters.The Supreme Court found that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 53-4A-7(c). The court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a detailed analysis of the newly discovered evidence in accordance with the established legal standards. View "Frame v. White" on Justia Law

Amanda Shrewsbury, the respondent, was employed as a teacher’s aide in a pre-kindergarten classroom at Cumberland Heights Elementary School during the 2018-2019 school year. She reported witnessing abuse and neglect of students by the classroom teacher, Alma Belcher, to the school principal, Steve Hayes, and later to the superintendent, Dr. Deborah Akers. Following her complaints, Shrewsbury alleges that her employment was terminated. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Mercer County Board of Education, Dr. Akers, and others, claiming wrongful discharge and other related grievances.The Circuit Court of Mercer County reviewed the case and denied the petitioners' motion for summary judgment, which was based on the assertion of qualified immunity. The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances presented.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the petitioners, as a political subdivision and an employee of a political subdivision, were not entitled to qualified immunity solely because the claims against them fell within the exceptions to statutory immunity set forth in the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act. The court clarified that the mere inapplicability of the Tort Claims Act due to specific exemptions does not permit the petitioners to claim qualified immunity. Therefore, the circuit court's denial of the motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was upheld. View "Mercer County Board of Education v. Shrewsbury" on Justia Law

The petitioner, G.M., appealed the Circuit Court of Wyoming County's decision to terminate his parental rights to his daughter, S.M. The case began in September 2021 when the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a referral alleging drug use by S.M.'s mother, T.M. Despite a safety plan, T.M. continued to test positive for drugs, and the family was often not home during DHS visits. In March 2022, DHS filed an abuse and neglect petition after finding the home without electricity and a used needle on the counter. The petitioner waived his right to a preliminary hearing and later stipulated to the allegations without his attorney present, leading to his adjudication as an abusing and neglecting parent.The petitioner was granted an improvement period requiring him to undergo various treatments and services. However, he failed multiple drug tests and did not comply with the case plan, leading to the revocation of his improvement period in October 2022. Despite being given another chance to enter in-patient rehabilitation, the petitioner continued to test positive for drugs and was arrested for DUI in January 2023. At the final disposition hearing in March 2023, the court found no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be corrected and terminated the petitioner's parental rights.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court found that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel at the adjudicatory hearing and that the circuit court did not err in accepting his stipulation. The court also upheld the termination of parental rights, citing the petitioner's failure to comply with the improvement period and continued substance abuse, which indicated no reasonable likelihood of correcting the conditions of abuse and neglect. View "In re S.M." on Justia Law

In September 2020, Child Protective Services removed twelve-year-old Z.S. and her siblings from their home due to domestic violence allegations against their stepfather, Michael J. In May 2021, Z.S. disclosed to her aunt and therapist that Michael J. had sexually abused her. Subsequently, Michael J. was indicted on multiple sexual offense charges, including second-degree sexual assault and incest. During the trial, the prosecution relied heavily on Z.S.'s testimony, as there was no physical evidence. Michael J. denied the allegations and testified in his defense, supported by his wife, who claimed he was never alone with Z.S. However, Z.S.'s sister contradicted this, stating they were often left alone with him.The Circuit Court of Fayette County allowed the prosecution to ask potential jurors during voir dire if they would convict Michael J. based solely on Z.S.'s testimony if they found it believable. All potential jurors agreed. Michael J. objected, but the court overruled the objection. The jury found Michael J. guilty on all charges, and he was sentenced to 61 to 145 years in prison. Michael J. appealed, arguing that the voir dire question was improper and prejudiced the jury.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and concluded that the prosecution's voir dire question was an improper commitment question. It violated Michael J.'s constitutional right to an impartial jury by asking jurors to pledge to convict based on the victim's testimony alone, without considering the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that this likely prejudiced the jury and reversed the lower court's decision, remanding the case for a new trial. View "State of West Virginia v Michael J." on Justia Law

In 1989, Johnny Miller was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting of his girlfriend, Lorelei Reed. Miller claimed the shooting was accidental and that he was intoxicated at the time. The State offered a plea deal for second-degree murder, which Miller's trial counsel advised against, leading Miller to reject the offer. Miller was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without mercy.Miller's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and his subsequent habeas corpus petitions were denied. In his first habeas petition in 1993, Miller argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for advising him to reject the plea offer. The Circuit Court of Raleigh County denied relief, finding that trial counsel's performance was not deficient. This decision was upheld on appeal. In 2002, Miller filed another habeas petition, again claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court found the claim barred by res judicata but also concluded on the merits that trial counsel's performance was not deficient.In 2012, Miller filed his fifth habeas petition, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lafler v. Cooper, which addressed ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. The Circuit Court of Raleigh County granted relief, finding that Lafler represented a change in the law that allowed Miller's claim to proceed despite previous denials.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that Lafler did not represent a change in the law that would affect Miller's case because West Virginia already recognized the right to effective counsel during plea negotiations. The court found that previous rulings correctly applied the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and that Miller's claim was barred by res judicata. View "Frame v. Miller" on Justia Law

Tricia Jackson and Jennifer Krouse, members of the Jefferson County Commission, refused to attend Commission meetings in the fall of 2023, preventing the Commission from conducting business, including appointing a replacement commissioner and releasing a development bond. Their refusal to attend meetings was in protest of the appointment process for the vacant seat, which they believed was flawed. This led to a petition for their removal by Matthew Harvey, the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney, under West Virginia Code § 6-6-7.The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, composed of three judges, found that Jackson and Krouse engaged in official misconduct and neglect of duty by willfully refusing to attend Commission meetings and fulfill their statutory duty to appoint a replacement commissioner. The court ordered their removal from office. Jackson and Krouse appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support their removal, that the court erred in drawing an adverse inference from their assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and that the court erred in denying their motion to continue the removal hearing.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the finding of official misconduct and neglect of duty, as Jackson and Krouse willfully refused to attend meetings and fulfill their statutory duties. The court also held that the adverse inference drawn from their assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was not preserved for appellate review. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to continue the removal hearing, as Jackson and Krouse had been aware of the potential for criminal charges since November 2023. View "Jackson v. Harvey" on Justia Law