Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy and conspiracy to commit burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from a residence with the property owners’ consent; (2) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from Defendant’s residence; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a change of venue; and (4) Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right not to wear jail attire during jury voir dire. View "State v. Payne" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, concealment of a deceased human body, and other offenses relating to the death of her twenty-six-day-old infant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting Defendant’s prior bad acts under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) Defendant’s argument that her conviction for concealment of a human body and her related conspiracy conviction should be set aside because she took affirmative action within the meaning of W. Va. Code 61-2-5a was without merit; (3) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy by not merging the child neglect resulting in death and child neglect creating a substantial risk of death counts into a single offense; (4) Defendant’s remaining assignments of error were without merit; and (5) there was no error or abuse of discretion in the court’s sentencing order. View "State v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit the destruction of property and attempt to commit grand larceny. Petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms of incarceration of one to five years and one to three years, respectively. Petitioner later filed a motion to reduce his sentence under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 35(b). The circuit court denied Petitioner’s Rule 35(b) motion. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in not reducing his sentence by awarding him probation or concurrent sentencing and by sentencing him on his felony conspiracy conviction when the evidence indicated that his crime was a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not commit reversible error in refusing to award either concurrent sentencing or probation; and (2) Petitioner’s assignment of error challenging his felony conspiracy conviction exceeded the scope of Rule 35(b). View "State v. Marcum" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of felony sexual assault and two counts of felony sexual abuse by a custodian. During the trial, the child victim began testifying in-court but became unresponsive when the State questioned her about Petitioner’s alleged sexual abuse. Thereafter, the trial court sua sponte ordered that the victim testify by live closed-circuit television. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by ordering the victim to testify by live closed-circuit television. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s failure to follow the mandatory procedural safeguards set forth in W.Va. Code 62-2B01 et seq. did not contribute to the verdict obtained. View "State v. David K." 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

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

During a 2007 fight, Smith attacked Thomas with a hammer, and, following a struggle over a loaded shotgun, Smith discharged the shotgun into Thomas’s leg. Thomas’s minor son (C.), was present. Smith was convicted of malicious assault involving a hammer, malicious assault involving a firearm, wanton endangerment of C., involving a firearm, and attempted murder, W. Va. Code sections 61-2-9(a), 61-7-12, 61-11-8, 61-2-1. After unsuccessful direct appeal, Smith sought habeas corpus relief, alleging violation of his due process rights and ineffective assistance of counsel. His memorandum of law argued that conviction and sentence for both the malicious assault of Thomas using a firearm and the wanton endangerment of C. involving a firearm placed Smith in double jeopardy. Before filing that memorandum, Smith did not mention the double jeopardy issue in any habeas filings, at trial, at sentencing, or on appeal. The court granted relief on the double jeopardy claim and permitted Smith to choose one of the two offending convictions and its corresponding sentence to be dismissed. He chose malicious assault with a firearm. The state filed an objection. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed; the “same transaction” test may not be used to decide whether prosecution and punishment imposed under two distinct statutory provisions violates double jeopardy principles. View "Mirandy v. Smith" on Justia Law