Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a joint jury trial, Petitioners, Antwyn Gibbs and Kevin Goodman, were convicted of first degree robbery, entry of a dwelling, and conspiracy to commit a felony. Through these consolidated appeals, Petitioners sought reversal of their convictions and sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Gibbs of first degree robbery; (2) Goodman’s sentence of fifty years incarceration for first degree robbery was proportionate to his crime; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion and took the appropriate factors into consideration in denying Petitioners’ respective motions to sever their trials. View "State v. Gibbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of attempted first degree murder, malicious assault, kidnapping, domestic assault and domestic battery. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and additional consecutive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting evidence of a previous domestic violence incident under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the circuit court did not commit err in failing to exclude a late-disclosed Facebook printout and by failing to grant a mistrial after the victim referred to blood on the print during her testimony at trial; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a judgment of acquittal regarding attempted first degree murder; (4) the circuit court did not err by failing to dismiss or set aside the kidnapping conviction; and (5) Petitioner's claim that he was denied a fair trial because the jury panel included only one African-American was more appropriately a subject within the scope of a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury did not recommend mercy. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not commit reversible error by (1) denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress his confession; (2) denying Petitioner’s motions in limine concerning forensic samples collected by the medical examiner; (3) admitting evidence that Petitioner contended should have been excluded by W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); and (4) denying Petitioner’s motion to bifurcate the trial into separate guilt and mercy phases. View "State v. Farley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that she was entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erred in allowing a police officer to improperly testify as a lay witness regarding historical cell site data and because the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred in permitting the officer to testify about historical cell site data as a lay witness, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) any objections Defendant had to the statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument were waived by her failure to object at trial. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The two petitioners in this case were juveniles who were adjudicated juvenile delinquents for sexual assault. At issue before the circuit court was whether the juveniles should be required to register as lifetime sexual offenders upon reaching the age twenty-one. The circuit court certified two questions to the Supreme Court regarding the sex offender statutes in relation to juvenile offenders. The Supreme Court answered (1) a juvenile adjudicated of certain acts of delinquency is not required to register under the sex offender registration statute; and (2) the nature of the crimes underlying the two juvenile delinquency petitions - first and second degree sexual assault - allows for the public disclosure of the names of the juveniles. View "State v. J.E." on Justia Law

Petitioner Rashaun Boyd and Petitioner Christopher Wyche were prosecuted in a joint trial. Boyd was convicted of attempted murder, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. Wyche was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, wanton endangerment, and possession of a firearm. This appeal followed the denial of post-trial motions. The Supreme Court affirmed the final judgments in these consolidated appeals, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Petitioners’ convictions; (2) contrary to Boyd’s argument, the Court’s standard of review set out in Syllabus point three of State v. Guthrie need not be overruled; (3) the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to sever the cases for trial; (4) the trial court’s evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal did not warrant reversal of Wyche’s convictions; (5) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct; and (6) the trial court did not err in allowing the State to use a peremptory strike to remove the only juror of “color.” View "State v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted on one count of malicious assault. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of assault and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Petitioner appealed, arguing that his conviction must be set aside on the grounds that he was not charged with the offense for which he was convicted because the crime of misdemeanor assault is not a lesser included offense of malicious assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) misdemeanor assault is a lesser included offense of malicious assault; and (2) the evidence submitted at trial supported an instruction on assault. View "State v. Henning" on Justia Law

In 1976, Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The life sentence included the element of mercy, and Petitioner was released on parole in 1986. While on parole, Petitioner was convicted in Pennsylvania of murder. After Petitioner completed his Pennsylvania sentence, his parole was revoked, and Petitioner’s life sentence, with mercy, was reimposed. Thereafter, Petitioner was informed that he would be ineligible for parole. Petitioner filed this habeas petition, alleging that the lack of a sentencing record regarding his armed robbery conviction violated the requirements of State v. Houston and Pratt v. Holland and that the West Virginia Parole Board violated his right to due process by denying a hearing before the Parole Board prior to the Board’s determination of his ineligibility for parole. The habeas court concluded that the sentence was fair and imposed the life sentence, with mercy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the habeas court did not include an impermissible factor as a reason for Petitioner’s life sentence; and (2) the denial of a hearing before the Parole Board in which to participate in the comparison of the two murder statutes did not violate Petitioner’s right to due process of law. View "Pratt v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on eight charges relating to the alleged sexual abuse of his eight-year-old daughter S.F. S.F. received treatment from the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), which maintained files to which the prosecutor had access. Defendant requested S.F.’s DHHR files on the ground that the prosecutor was required to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence in its possession. After an in camera review, the circuit court granted Defendant’s lawyer access to the DHHR files, finding that Defendant had a constitutional right to review the DHHR’s files on S.F. on the grounds that the files contained exculpatory information that was material to the defense. The prosecutor then sought a writ of prohibition against the enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by finding that Defendant had a constitutional right to review the DHHR’s files on S.F.; and (2) the circuit court followed the correct procedure in determining that these files could be reviewed by Defendant’s lawyer. View "State ex rel. Lorenzetti v. Honorable David H. Sanders" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the misdemeanor crime of sexual abuse in the third degree and was sentenced to the maximum statutory term of ninety days in jail. Petitioner was also required to register as a sexual offender for life. After serving his sentence, Petitioner pled guilty to failing to provide a change in his sex offender registration information. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to an indeterminate term of one to five years, then suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. Thereafter, Petitioner twice pled guilty to failing to report a change in his information. Petitioner was ultimately sentenced to a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years of incarceration. Petitioner later filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(b) arguing that his age at the time he committed the misdemeanor third degree sexual abuse and his actions thereafter warranted a lesser sentence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to afford Petitioner mercy. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law