Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves Chad M. Eldredge, who was convicted of one count of second-degree sexual assault against his stepdaughter, G.Y., and sentenced to ten to twenty-five years in prison. G.Y. alleged multiple instances of sexual assault by Eldredge, which occurred when she was between twelve and seventeen years old. The allegations included inappropriate touching, oral sex, and the use of a sex toy. Eldredge denied all allegations, claiming they were fabricated by G.Y. as retribution for his criticism of her boyfriend and her mother's refusal to let the boyfriend move in.The Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia, initially reviewed the case. During the trial, the court allowed the State to question R.E., G.Y.'s mother, about pending fraud charges related to her use of her sister's credit card to fund Eldredge's jail account. The court also questioned R.E. about her decision to give vibrators to G.Y., which R.E. claimed was to prevent G.Y. from engaging in sexual activities with boys. Eldredge was acquitted of fourteen other counts, including additional charges of sexual assault, sexual abuse by a parent or guardian, and incest.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred by allowing questioning about R.E.'s pending criminal charges, which violated West Virginia Rule of Evidence 609, and by questioning R.E. in a manner that prejudiced her credibility, violating Rule 614(b). The Supreme Court of Appeals held that these errors were not harmless, as they impacted the credibility of a crucial defense witness and the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court reversed Eldredge's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Eldredge" on Justia Law

Monica Hartwell was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Michael Walker on her front porch. On the day of the incident, Walker, who had mental health issues, was loudly ranting on the porch. Hartwell apologized to her neighbors for the disturbance and returned home. Shortly after, a gunshot was heard, and Walker was found dead on the porch. Hartwell had gone inside the house and remained there until police arrived. Upon her arrest, Trooper Weikle asked her, "where's the gun?" to which she responded, "it's on the couch."The Circuit Court of Mercer County denied Hartwell's motion to suppress her statement to Trooper Weikle, ruling it admissible as routine, on-the-scene questioning for officer safety. Hartwell was subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to forty years in prison. She appealed, arguing that her statement was inadmissible because it was made during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and was also inadmissible hearsay.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that Hartwell was in custody when questioned but found that the public safety exception to Miranda applied. The court held that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to public safety outweighs the need for Miranda warnings. The court determined that Trooper Weikle's question was necessary to secure officer and public safety, given the immediate need to locate the weapon. The court also rejected Hartwell's hearsay argument, noting that her statement was admissible as an admission of a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "State v. Hartwell" on Justia Law

Lawrence Davonn Foye was placed on court-supervised parole after being convicted of fleeing in a vehicle with reckless indifference. His parole conditions included not violating any laws, avoiding disreputable persons, and abstaining from drug use. In January 2023, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his parole, alleging three violations: using marijuana, being charged with first-degree murder, and associating with a disreputable person. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County revoked his parole and imposed the underlying sentence.The Circuit Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the parole violations. Detective Adkins testified about the murder investigation, corroborating information from a cooperating witness with cell phone data and video footage. The court also noted that Foye did not contest the allegations of drug use and associating with a disreputable person. The court applied the "reasonable cause" standard from West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) to revoke Foye's parole.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The court clarified that the standard of proof for a final parole or probation revocation hearing under West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that the State met this standard by presenting sufficient evidence of all three parole violations. The court also addressed the procedural due process requirements, ensuring that Foye's rights were protected during the revocation process. View "State v. Foye" on Justia Law

Marietta Area Healthcare, Inc., Marietta Memorial Hospital, and Marietta Healthcare Physicians, Inc. (collectively "Marietta") filed a lawsuit against Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation, Camden-Clark Health Services, Inc., West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc., and West Virginia United Health System, Inc. (collectively "Camden-Clark"). Marietta alleged that Camden-Clark attempted to economically disadvantage them by causing its agents and employees to initiate and pursue a spurious qui tam action against Marietta. The claims included malicious prosecution, tortious interference, abuse of process, fraudulent legal process, civil conspiracy, negligent supervision, aiding and abetting tortious conduct, and vicarious liability.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia reviewed the case and denied Camden-Clark's motion to dismiss seven of the eight claims. However, the court deferred ruling on the negligent supervision claim, noting that the law regarding negligent supervision in West Virginia was unsettled. The district court then certified three questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia regarding the viability and elements of a negligent supervision claim and whether intentional or reckless torts by an employee could form the basis for such a claim.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that a claim for negligent supervision is viable under West Virginia common law. The court clarified that the elements of a negligent supervision claim include the traditional elements of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—along with the necessity of demonstrating a tortious act or omission by the employee. The court further held that an employer could be liable for negligent supervision regardless of whether the employee's conduct was negligent, reckless, or intentional, provided the elements of the claim are met. View "Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Marietta Area Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2021, Scott Michael Andrew Hundley fatally stabbed Thomas Cekada Jr. after an altercation. Hundley claimed self-defense, stating that Cekada had brandished a firearm at him twice, once at a Dollar General store and later during a car collision on Mountain Mission Road. Hundley was indicted for first-degree murder by the Jefferson County Grand Jury.The Circuit Court of Jefferson County held a pre-trial hearing where Hundley’s motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement was denied. The court found that Hundley’s statement about needing a lawyer was equivocal and that he was not in custody at the time. The court also granted the State’s motion to exclude evidence of Cekada’s drug use, ruling it irrelevant without expert testimony linking the drugs to irrational behavior. The court denied the State’s request to introduce evidence of Hundley’s prior stabbing incident under Rule 404(b).At trial, the State presented testimony from officers and witnesses, including evidence that Cekada’s hands were bloody but his firearm was not. Hundley testified, reiterating his self-defense claim. The court allowed the State to argue in rebuttal that the lack of blood on the firearm disproved Hundley’s self-defense claim. The jury found Hundley guilty of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to forty-five years in prison, including a recidivist enhancement.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of the toxicology report and text messages about Cekada’s drug use. The court also upheld the circuit court’s control over closing arguments and found no prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations. The court affirmed Hundley’s conviction and sentence. View "State v. Hundley" on Justia Law

The City of Huntington and the Cabell County Commission filed lawsuits against AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corp., alleging that the defendants contributed to the opioid epidemic by distributing excessive quantities of opioids to pharmacies. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' actions created a public nuisance that should be abated under West Virginia common law. The cases were consolidated and remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, which held a ten-week bench trial.The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants' conduct was unreasonable or that it proximately caused the opioid epidemic. The court found that the defendants substantially complied with their duties under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the volume of opioids distributed was excessive or that the defendants failed to maintain effective controls against diversion. The district court also determined that the plaintiffs' proposed abatement plan was not appropriate.The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, contesting the district court's factual findings and legal conclusions. The Fourth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, asking whether conditions caused by the distribution of a controlled substance can constitute a public nuisance under West Virginia common law and, if so, what the elements of such a claim are.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia declined to answer the certified question, citing the disputed factual findings and related legal conclusions on appeal. The court emphasized that it could not address the legal issue without a sufficiently precise and undisputed factual record, and any answer would be advisory given the unsettled facts. View "City of Huntington and Cabell County Commission v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Resources filed a petition alleging that S.N.M. abused and neglected her three children, K.A, Jr., N.A, and J.B. The circuit court found abuse and neglect had occurred and terminated S.N.M.’s parental rights as to all three children. S.N.M. appealed, and the case was remanded with directions to determine if the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction as to J.B. and to rule on S.N.M.’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. After remand, the circuit court denied the motion and terminated S.N.M.’s parental rights to J.B. again.The circuit court found that J.B.’s paternal grandmother had sought guardianship due to the parents' substance abuse and other issues. The court also found that J.B. visited her mother’s home and was subjected to the same conditions as her half-siblings. However, the record lacked evidence of when these visits occurred or if the conditions existed at the time of the petition’s filing. The circuit court denied a post-adjudicatory improvement period for S.N.M., citing her continued drug use, association with violent partners, and failure to acknowledge her substance abuse issues.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It affirmed the circuit court’s decision to deny a post-adjudicatory improvement period for K.A., Jr., and N.A., finding no abuse of discretion. However, it reversed the termination of parental rights as to J.B., concluding that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found that the circuit court’s findings were insufficient to establish jurisdiction over J.B. and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the petition regarding J.B. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "In re K.A., N.A., and J.B." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a sixteen-year-old, applied to the Mountaineer Challenge Academy (MCA) as an alternative to public high school. During the acclimation period, he injured his knee after exiting his bunk improperly. He was evaluated by medical personnel, placed on restricted duty, and later cleared for full duty. Subsequently, he was discharged from the program for noncompliance. Petitioner sued MCA and the West Virginia Army National Guard, alleging that their failure to enforce safety policies caused his injury and led to his unjust dismissal.The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, citing qualified immunity. The court found that the actions of the MCA staff involved discretionary functions and did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the cadre’s supervision fell within discretionary actions and that there was no violation of the petitioner’s right to an education or any statutory duty to supervise.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the cadre’s actions were discretionary and protected by qualified immunity. It found no violation of clearly established rights or laws, as MCA is not part of the public school system and thus not subject to the same constitutional protections. The court also concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondents acted fraudulently, maliciously, or oppressively. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, upholding the grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondents. View "Moorhead v. West Virginia Army National Guard" on Justia Law

Brian Allen Merchant Jones was indicted for conspiracy to commit felony controlled substance offenses, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and involuntary manslaughter after he shot and killed his friend, Zackerie Howser, on September 15, 2020. The victim and Jones were involved in drug trafficking, and the shooting occurred shortly after Jones arrived at the victim's home to deliver methamphetamine. Jones pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and involuntary manslaughter but proceeded to trial on the conspiracy and firearm charges.The Circuit Court of Marion County convicted Jones of conspiracy to commit felony controlled substance offenses and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Jones filed post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, which were denied. He was sentenced to fifteen years for conspiracy, ten years for use of a firearm, five years for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and one year for involuntary manslaughter.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the hearsay testimony regarding the victim's statements about drug sales was admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) as statements against interest by an unavailable declarant. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments about Jones's flight during closing arguments, although improper, did not render the trial unfair. The court concluded that the evidence of Jones's involvement in the drug conspiracy and the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony was sufficient to support his convictions. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment and sentencing order. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

A state agency, WorkForce West Virginia, and its Acting Commissioner, Scott A. Adkins, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of three orders issued by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. These orders granted a writ of mandamus to the plaintiffs, denied WorkForce’s motion to dismiss, and allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. The plaintiffs, who received unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleged that WorkForce engaged in illegal collection activities by attempting to recover overpayments beyond the statutory time limits.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that WorkForce’s collection activities were time-barred by West Virginia Code § 21A-10-21, which imposes a two-year statute of limitations for recovering overpayments made due to error. The court also concluded that WorkForce could not determine overpayments due to nondisclosure or misrepresentation through its administrative process and must instead pursue such claims in circuit court. Based on this interpretation, the circuit court granted mandamus and injunctive relief, ordering WorkForce to cease its collection activities and comply with the statutory time limits.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the relevant statutes. The higher court concluded that the administrative process established by the Legislature allows WorkForce to determine whether overpayments occurred due to error, nondisclosure, or misrepresentation. The court emphasized that claimants must exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, as mandated by West Virginia Code § 21A-7-19. Since the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition and directed the circuit court to dismiss the case. View "Adkins v. Bailey" on Justia Law