Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The decedent in this case executed two wills, the first in West Virginia in 2012 and the second in New York in 2014. The named executor of the West Virginia will (Plaintiff) filed a complaint in a West Virginia circuit court challenging the validity of the New York will. The executrix of the New York will (Defendant) moved to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. Specifically, Defendant argued that the West Virginia Court lacked jurisdiction because a New York probate court had already decided the New York will was valid. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the final order from the New York court did not foreclose further inquiry into the decedent’s will by a West Virginia court; (2) Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff’s only avenue to challenge the probate of the New York will in West Virginia was before the county commission was unavailing; and (3) Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to demonstrate that the probate of the New York will was improper. View "Mason v. Torrellas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and of attempted extortion. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on the kidnapping conviction, with parole eligibility in ten years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the decision of the trial court to admit into evidence the entirety of Petitioner’s audio recorded statements, a portion of which contained statements he made after unequivocally invoking his right to counsel, was not plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence; and (2) the trial court did not err in failing to grant Petitioner’s motions for acquittal at the close of the State’s case-in-chief and at the close of all the evidence, and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. View "State v. Vilela" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife. The circuit court denied Petitioner’s motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Petitioner appealed, raising seven claims of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial when the jury returned its verdict after deliberating “only seventy minutes”; (2) the circuit court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. View "State v. Greenfield" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and two counts of sexual assault by a person in a position of trust. Defendant was sentenced to an effective term of thirty to ninety years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the circuit court did not err in instructing the jury regarding Defendant’s absence from the courtroom during the child victim’s testimony; (3) the circuit court’s comment regarding the child victim as a witness was not an impermissible credibility determination; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. View "State v. Gary A." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to third offense shoplifting. The Circuit Court of Braxton County imposed a sentence of one to ten years of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a sentence previously imposed in Monongalia County. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion under W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(b) seeking to modify his sentence. While that motion was pending, Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred when it denied his pre-sentencing motion for an alternative sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s pending Rule 35(b) motion had no effect on the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction of the final judgment order; and (2) the sentence of imprisonment was not disproportionate for the crime of third offense shoplifting. View "State v. Doom" on Justia Law

Stephen Swain filed claims for workers’ compensation benefits for his occupational hearing loss. An administrative law judge (ALJ) with the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges identified Pioneer Pipe, Inc. and two other employers as being potentially chargeable for Swain’s claim. The ALJ then ruled that Pioneer Pipe was the sole chargeable employer responsible for paying Swain’s hearing loss claim under W.Va. Code 23-4-6b(g). The Workers Compensation Board of Review affirmed. Pioneer Pipe appealed, contending, inter alia, that the language of W. Va. Code 23-4-6b(g) requires the Insurance Commissioner to allocate and divide the charges for a hearing loss claim if the claimant was injured while employed by multiple employers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) by using the term “may” in the statute, the Legislature afforded the Insurance Commissioner discretion in deciding whether to allocate and divide charges for a hearing loss claim between various employers or to charge only one employer; and (2) the statute does not require sixty days of exposure to hazardous noise before the Insurance Commissioner may hold an employer solely responsible for a hearing loss claim. View "Pioneer Pipe, Inc. v. Swain" on Justia Law

Petitioner Erik Patrick Wells, a registered Democrat, filed a “Candidate’s Certificate of Announcement for 2016 Partisan Elections” but left blank his party affiliation. Petitioner indicated on a subsequently filed “Minor Party or Independent Candidate Nomination Petition” that he was running for the office of Kanawha County Clerk as an “independent.” Respondent, the State of West Virginia, filed an amended petition for writ of quo warranto. The circuit court granted Respondent’s petition and disallowed Petitioner’s candidacy in the November 8, 2016 general election. The circuit court found that, as a registered member of the Democratic Party, Petitioner’s candidacy was governed by the provisions of W. Va. Code 3-5-7 and that Petitioner had failed to comply with its requirements, thus disqualifying him as a candidate for the office of county clerk. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 3-5-7 applies to any person who seeks to hold an office or political party position to be filled by primary or general election; and (2) the circuit court properly granted the petition for writ of quo warranto because Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the statute. View "Wells v. State ex rel. Miller" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the biological parents of D.M. D.M. was removed from Mother and Father and placed in the custody of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (the DHHR). After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court entered a final order finding D.M. to be an abused and neglected child and terminating the parental rights of both Mother and Father. The court denied Mother’s and Father’s motions for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and ordered that custody of D.M. will remain with the DHHR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in determining that D.M. was an abused and neglected child and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future; and (2) properly determined that neither Mother nor Father established a likelihood of full participation in a post-adjudicatory improvement period. View "In re D.M." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree sexual assault and of attempting to commit first-degree sexual abuse. The court found that, under Rule 412 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the circuit court abused its discretion when it prevented defendant from admitting and using text messages from the victim's boyfriend. In this case, the prosecutor opposed admitting the texts, though acknowledging that the victim's reluctance to report the crime, the fact that she discussed it with her boyfriend and the boyfriend pushed her to report the crime, is relevant. The court further concluded that exclusion of the text messages warrants a new trial. Finally, the court concluded that Officer Robertson's testimony as a lay witness was hearsay and irrelevant to the situation at hand. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "West Virginia v. Varlas" on Justia Law

S.H. was adjudicated to have been neglected by her maternal grandmother and guardian, M.C. M.C. was granted an improvement period, but the improvement period was abruptly terminated by the court’s order, and M.C.’s guardianship of S.H. was subsequently terminated. The court affirmed the determination that S.H. was a neglected child, finding no error as to that conclusion. However, the court concluded that termination of M.C.’s improvement period was erroneous because M.C. was in full compliance with the terms and conditions of her improvement period. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions. View "In Re: S.H." on Justia Law