Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Bradley Rohrbaugh, who was charged with fleeing from an officer with reckless indifference, a violation of West Virginia Code § 61-5-17(f). The charges stemmed from an incident where a state trooper attempted to stop Rohrbaugh for speeding, but he allegedly continued to accelerate, reaching speeds of approximately 100 miles per hour. Rohrbaugh was later arrested, and a grand jury returned a one-count indictment against him.The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court of Grant County. During the pretrial motions hearing, the prosecuting attorney informed the court that Rohrbaugh's defense counsel had expressed a desire for a bench trial. The court did not directly address Rohrbaugh about his desire for a bench trial or his right to a jury trial. The court then scheduled the bench trial, and Rohrbaugh was found guilty of the charged offense and sentenced to one to five years imprisonment.Rohrbaugh appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing that he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. He also claimed that the circuit court's factual findings did not support his conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with Rohrbaugh's argument regarding the waiver of his right to a jury trial. The court found that the record did not firmly establish that Rohrbaugh's waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. As a result, the court vacated Rohrbaugh's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Rohrbaugh" on Justia Law

The case involves two petitioners, Daniel Dilly, Superintendent of the Rubenstein Juvenile Center (RJC), and Nancy Oldaker, Health Services Administrator at RJC, who were held in contempt of court by Judge Kurt Hall of the Circuit Court of Lewis County, West Virginia. The contempt charges arose from an incident involving a resident of RJC, identified as D.P., who suffered a broken jaw during a fight with other residents. The court had ordered that D.P. be taken off RJC grounds for an X-ray and that his mother be notified of his medical appointments. The court found that these orders were not adequately followed by the petitioners.The Circuit Court of Lewis County held a hearing to review D.P.'s placement and medical care, resulting in a "Medical Care Order" that directed RJC to schedule an appointment for D.P. with his oral surgeon and to allow D.P.'s mother to attend the appointment. The court also ordered RJC to provide a report concerning the incident that led to D.P.'s injury. When these orders were not fully complied with, the court held a "show cause" hearing and found both Superintendent Dilly and Ms. Oldaker in contempt of court, fining each of them $250.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that procedural errors in the lower court's contempt proceedings deprived the court of jurisdiction to impose such sanctions. The court noted that the lower court failed to provide the petitioners with adequate notice that they were facing indirect criminal contempt proceedings and did not afford them jury trials before imposing the fines. The court concluded that the contempt orders were void and granted the petitioners' requested writs of prohibition, thereby preventing the lower court from enforcing the contempt orders. View "State ex rel. Dilly v. Hall" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Blackrock Enterprises, LLC and BB Land, LLC and JB Exploration 1, LLC over a Lease Acquisition Agreement (LAA). Both parties claimed the other had breached the agreement and sought declaratory relief regarding their respective rights and obligations. The trial was bifurcated into two phases. In the first phase, a jury found that both parties had materially breached the LAA, but that Blackrock had committed the first material breach. As a result, the business court concluded that Blackrock could not recover for any subsequent breach committed by Jay-Bee. In the second phase, the business court determined that the parties were engaged in a de facto mining partnership and ordered Blackrock dissociated from the partnership. The court also valued Blackrock’s partnership interest at zero and ordered it to quit-claim its interests in certain leases to Jay-Bee. Blackrock appealed, arguing that the business court committed multiple errors in both phases of the proceedings.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the business court erred in its construction of the first material breach doctrine and by granting judgment for Jay-Bee on the basis of clearly erroneous findings “deemed” made by operation of West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a). The court reversed the final judgment and remanded for a new trial and further proceedings. The court also vacated that portion of the final judgment order finding the parties engaged in a mining partnership. View "Blackrock Enterprises, LLC v. BB Land, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the duty of care owed by a common carrier, the Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority (KRT), to a passenger, Sandy K. Hayes, who had safely exited the carrier's bus. After disembarking, Hayes crossed the road and was struck by another vehicle. Hayes sued KRT, arguing that it breached its duty to use the "highest degree of care" towards her. The circuit judge disagreed and granted summary judgment to KRT, finding no evidence of any duty that was breached.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted summary judgment in favor of KRT. The court found that KRT did not have a duty to Hayes after she flagged the stop, exited the bus, and crossed the road where she was struck by a vehicle. The court determined that KRT owed Hayes no high duty of care after she exited the bus and found no factual disputes remaining for a jury to resolve.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that a common carrier owes the highest degree of care to a passenger who is in the act of boarding, is upon, or is in the act of disembarking from, the carrier’s vehicle. However, once a passenger safely and freely disembarks from a common carrier’s vehicle at his or her chosen destination, the carrier’s contract to safely transport the passenger ends and the former passenger assumes the status of a pedestrian. From that point, the carrier owes the former passenger only a duty of ordinary care. The court found that KRT's high duty of care ended when Hayes safely disembarked from the bus and that she offered no evidence that KRT breached its ordinary duty of care. View "Hayes v. Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

The case involves Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc. (Potomac), a residential behavioral health center in West Virginia, and two former residents, L.K. and D.S., who were represented by their guardian and conservator, Kelly Young. The plaintiffs alleged that they were abused and neglected by Potomac staff members while residing at the facility for approximately five months spanning the years 2013 and 2014. They asserted claims for negligence and unlawful discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act.The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court of Hardy County, where the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. Potomac appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in several ways, including denying its pre-trial motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Potomac is a “place of public accommodations” under the Human Rights Act, and admitting evidence at trial pertaining to the abuse of other children who resided at Potomac and the results of a 2014 investigation of that abuse.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that Potomac is not a “place of public accommodations” under the Human Rights Act and that the lower court erred by not granting summary judgment to Potomac on this issue prior to trial. The court also found that the lower court committed reversible error by admitting the 2014 investigative reports in their entirety into evidence at trial. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court’s final order and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc.v. L.K., By Her Guardian and Conservator, Young" on Justia Law

The case involves Brian E. Lyon, II, who was convicted of eight felonies, including first-degree murder, first-degree sexual assault, and attempted first-degree murder. The trial court imposed the maximum penalty for each offense. On appeal, Lyon argued that unpreserved trial errors affected the fairness of the proceedings. He claimed that the trial court delivered a defective jury instruction on first-degree sexual assault because it failed to include an element of the crime, lack of consent. He also claimed that the assistant prosecuting attorney made improper comments to the jury when he referred to Lyon as a “monster” and “evil” during his opening statement and closing argument.The Circuit Court of Marion County conducted Lyon’s jury trial in September 2021. The State introduced evidence showing that Lyon’s cell phone’s geo-location data placed him at the crime scene on the night of the crimes. Lyon’s DNA was found on a beer can recovered from the home, and his seminal fluid and skin cells were found on a piece of paper towel there. Lyon’s girlfriend testified about meeting him after he committed the crimes and traveling with him to Pennsylvania where he was eventually apprehended by authorities.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the convictions, finding no merit to Lyon's assignments of error. The court concluded that the trial court's jury instruction on first-degree sexual assault, although it erroneously omitted the lack of consent element, did not impair the truth-finding function of the trial or affect the outcome of the court proceedings. The court also found that while the prosecutor's remarks referring to Lyon as a "monster" and "evil" were improper, they did not unfairly mislead the jury or prejudice Lyon considering the strength of the State’s evidence establishing his guilt. View "State v. Lyon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed a case involving a man, Juan McMutary, who was stopped by a police officer for a traffic violation. During the stop, the officer conducted a search of McMutary's vehicle with his permission, uncovering a firearm and four bags later determined to contain illegal drugs. As a result, McMutary was indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and felony possession of a controlled substance, fentanyl, with intent to deliver in an amount more than one gram but less than five grams.The Circuit Court of Wood County had previously denied McMutary's motion to suppress the evidence collected by the police officer during the search of his vehicle, and his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to the sentence enhancement imposed under West Virginia Code § 60A-4415(b)(2). McMutary appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision to deny McMutary's motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that the officer had probable cause to conduct a traffic stop when she witnessed McMutary commit a traffic infraction. However, the court reversed the conviction and sentencing order which enhanced McMutary's sentence under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-415(b)(2), as the evidence presented at trial did not support the conviction and subsequent sentencing enhancement. The court remanded the case for resentencing under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-415(b)(1). View "State of West Virginia v. Juan McMutary" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Dr. Jose Ravelo, a board-certified oral surgeon, against the West Virginia Board of Dentistry. The petitioner sought to halt the Board's ongoing investigation and any further disciplinary action against him based on his treatment of a patient in 2021. He argued that the Board violated the statutory time limitation for resolution of disciplinary actions and violated his due process rights.The Board initiated an investigation after Dr. Ravelo self-reported a complication following a surgical procedure he performed on a patient. The Board's Complaint Committee recommended filing a complaint against Dr. Ravelo, citing concerns about his standard of care. Dr. Ravelo responded to the complaint, and the Board continued its investigation.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the Board complied with West Virginia Code § 30-1-5(c), which permits an extension of time for the Board to issue a final ruling. The Court held that an agreement to extend the period of time for an applicable regulatory board to issue a final ruling on a complaint is not barred by the fact that the applicable board is also the complainant. The Court also found that the Board had not violated the petitioner's constitutional right to due process. Therefore, the Court denied the petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Ravelo v. West Virginia Board of Dentistry" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a deed reservation related to a shale pit on a property owned by the Hansen-Gier Family Trust. The deed, originally between the Haywoods and the Paughs, reserved the use of the shale pit for ingress and egress roads of "the development property." The Trust, the current property owner, sought a declaratory judgment that the reservation had fulfilled its purpose and is now void, or alternatively, that the reservation was limited to use on the ingress and egress roads of its property and two neighboring parcels. The Haywoods, however, argued that "the development property" meant any property they had developed or were going to develop.The Circuit Court of Mineral County ruled in favor of the Haywoods, interpreting "the development property" as any property the Haywoods develop. The court granted the Haywoods ownership rights to the shale and the right to remove the shale for property that they develop.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the lower court's interpretation broadened the scope of the reservation beyond the language of the deed. The court also found that the lower court failed to consider the use-and-purpose limitation in the reservation, which specified that the shale could only be used for ingress and egress roads. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to make additional findings consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the reservation. View "The Hansen-Gier Family Trust v. Haywood" on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, M.L., who has a history of substance abuse and involvement with the Department of Human Services (DHS). She has four children, all of whom have been affected by her substance abuse. The case at hand pertains to her fourth child, H.T., who was born drug-addicted. After H.T.'s birth, the court transferred his custody to DHS, which placed him with his father's relatives. M.L. was granted a disposition that allowed her to retain her parental rights while H.T. remained in the physical and legal custody of his father, D.T. However, D.T. died of a drug overdose, leaving H.T. without a legal guardian.The Circuit Court of Marion County had previously granted M.L. a disposition that allowed her to retain her parental rights while H.T. remained in the physical and legal custody of his father. After D.T.'s death, M.L., acting as a self-represented litigant, filed a motion to modify disposition to regain custody of H.T. However, the court found that M.L. had not shown a material change in circumstances warranting a less restrictive alternative than the previous disposition.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that M.L. had a long history of substance abuse and had exhausted all improvement periods and services available to her. Despite her claims of sobriety, she continued to test positive for drugs. The court concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be corrected in the near future and that it was in H.T.'s best interest to terminate M.L.'s parental rights. View "In re H.T." on Justia Law