Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Stephen Cross, the defendant in the underlying action, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Randolph County from enforcing its order denying the State’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with murder and using a firearm during the commission of a felony. The State’s motion to dismiss asserted that Cross’s actions were justified by self-defense and that there was no evidence to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court denied the motion, reasoning that the case must proceed to trial to avoid public misconception and because a grand jury had returned the indictment.Previously, the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorney recused himself due to a conflict of interest, and the court appointed Brian Hinkle as special prosecuting attorney. Hinkle later sought to withdraw, citing a conflict of interest and his belief that prosecuting Cross would result in a manifest injustice. The court allowed Hinkle to withdraw and appointed John Ours as the new special prosecutor. Ours filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, citing insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court denied this motion, emphasizing the need for a jury trial to address public perception and the grand jury’s indictment.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted the writ of prohibition in part, finding that the circuit court clearly erred and exceeded its legitimate powers by denying the State’s motion to dismiss. The court held that when the State seeks a dismissal and the defendant consents, the court must determine whether the dismissal is consistent with the public interest in the fair administration of justice. A dismissal meets this standard if the State acts in good faith at the time it seeks dismissal. The court found that the State acted in good faith and that the circuit court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the prosecution. The writ was denied in part regarding the circuit court’s orders sealing certain documents and precluding public discussion of the case. View "State ex rel. Cross v. Wilmoth" on Justia Law

In 2001, Barry White was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his four minor stepchildren. The children did not testify at trial due to their young age and psychological evaluations indicating they were not capable of doing so. Instead, their statements were admitted through the testimony of professionals who had interviewed them. White was sentenced to a minimum of 100 years in prison. His direct appeal and several habeas corpus petitions were denied.White filed a new habeas petition in 2017, claiming newly discovered evidence. He presented transcripts of interviews with three of the now-adult victims, who either denied remembering the abuse or stated it did not happen. The Circuit Court of Mercer County granted White's petition, finding that the new testimonies constituted recantations and warranted a new trial.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. The court noted that the circuit court's analysis was overly simplistic, focusing mainly on the fact that the victims did not testify at the original trial. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough analysis of the credibility and reliability of the recantations, considering the victims' prior inconsistent statements and the other evidence presented at trial, such as physical evidence of abuse and White's incriminating jail letters.The Supreme Court found that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 53-4A-7(c). The court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a detailed analysis of the newly discovered evidence in accordance with the established legal standards. View "Frame v. White" on Justia Law

In September 2020, Child Protective Services removed twelve-year-old Z.S. and her siblings from their home due to domestic violence allegations against their stepfather, Michael J. In May 2021, Z.S. disclosed to her aunt and therapist that Michael J. had sexually abused her. Subsequently, Michael J. was indicted on multiple sexual offense charges, including second-degree sexual assault and incest. During the trial, the prosecution relied heavily on Z.S.'s testimony, as there was no physical evidence. Michael J. denied the allegations and testified in his defense, supported by his wife, who claimed he was never alone with Z.S. However, Z.S.'s sister contradicted this, stating they were often left alone with him.The Circuit Court of Fayette County allowed the prosecution to ask potential jurors during voir dire if they would convict Michael J. based solely on Z.S.'s testimony if they found it believable. All potential jurors agreed. Michael J. objected, but the court overruled the objection. The jury found Michael J. guilty on all charges, and he was sentenced to 61 to 145 years in prison. Michael J. appealed, arguing that the voir dire question was improper and prejudiced the jury.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and concluded that the prosecution's voir dire question was an improper commitment question. It violated Michael J.'s constitutional right to an impartial jury by asking jurors to pledge to convict based on the victim's testimony alone, without considering the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that this likely prejudiced the jury and reversed the lower court's decision, remanding the case for a new trial. View "State of West Virginia v Michael J." on Justia Law

In 1989, Johnny Miller was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting of his girlfriend, Lorelei Reed. Miller claimed the shooting was accidental and that he was intoxicated at the time. The State offered a plea deal for second-degree murder, which Miller's trial counsel advised against, leading Miller to reject the offer. Miller was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without mercy.Miller's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and his subsequent habeas corpus petitions were denied. In his first habeas petition in 1993, Miller argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for advising him to reject the plea offer. The Circuit Court of Raleigh County denied relief, finding that trial counsel's performance was not deficient. This decision was upheld on appeal. In 2002, Miller filed another habeas petition, again claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court found the claim barred by res judicata but also concluded on the merits that trial counsel's performance was not deficient.In 2012, Miller filed his fifth habeas petition, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lafler v. Cooper, which addressed ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. The Circuit Court of Raleigh County granted relief, finding that Lafler represented a change in the law that allowed Miller's claim to proceed despite previous denials.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that Lafler did not represent a change in the law that would affect Miller's case because West Virginia already recognized the right to effective counsel during plea negotiations. The court found that previous rulings correctly applied the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and that Miller's claim was barred by res judicata. View "Frame v. Miller" on Justia Law

In May 2019, a fire in Davisville resulted in the deaths of Robert and Charlotte Taylor and injuries to a child. Sixteen-year-old M.W., the Taylors' daughter, was interviewed by Deputy Fire Marshal Jason Baltic at the scene. During the interview, M.W. confessed to starting the fire using gasoline. M.W. was subsequently indicted for first-degree murder, attempted murder, and arson. She moved to suppress her confession, arguing that she had not voluntarily waived her Miranda rights and that her confession was coerced. The circuit court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to trial, where the jury found M.W. guilty on all counts.The Circuit Court of Wood County denied M.W.'s motion to suppress her confession, finding that she had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights. The court also found that her confession was not coerced. M.W. later filed an emergency motion to reconsider the suppression ruling, citing a Brady violation due to the late disclosure of Deputy Sheriff Tasha Hewitt's past untruthfulness. The circuit court denied this motion, stating that Baltic's testimony was credible and sufficient to establish that M.W. had been read her Miranda rights.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decisions. The court held that M.W. had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights, considering her age, intelligence, and the circumstances of the interview. The court also found that her confession was not coerced, as Baltic's interview techniques did not overbear her will. Additionally, the court ruled that the late disclosure of Hewitt's past untruthfulness did not constitute a Brady violation that would have changed the outcome of the suppression hearing. Finally, the court upheld the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence to support M.W.'s convictions. View "State v. M.W." on Justia Law

The State of West Virginia sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Monongalia County from enforcing its order dismissing a two-count indictment against William J. McGough. McGough was charged with failing to register as a sex offender, second or subsequent offense, under West Virginia Code § 15-12-8. The circuit court dismissed the indictment, concluding that McGough was not required to register as a sex offender in West Virginia because he was no longer required to register in Ohio, where his original conviction occurred.The Circuit Court of Monongalia County granted McGough’s pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment. The court reasoned that under West Virginia Code § 15-12-9(c), McGough was not required to register in West Virginia since he was no longer required to register in Ohio. The court interpreted this statute as the only relevant law applicable to McGough’s case, thereby dismissing the indictment on the grounds that the facts did not support the charges.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers by dismissing the indictment based on the sufficiency of the evidence. The court held that a circuit court may not grant a defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on such grounds, as this invades the province of the grand jury. The court emphasized that the grand jury’s role is to determine whether there is sufficient probable cause to require the defendant to stand trial, not to determine the truth of the charges. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition, preventing the circuit court from enforcing its dismissal order. View "State of West Virginia ex rel., State of West Virginia v. Gwaltney" on Justia Law

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 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 State of West Virginia sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Monongalia County from enforcing its order dismissing a six-count indictment against J.L. and D.F., who were charged with crimes relating to child abuse and neglect. The Circuit Court had dismissed the indictment based on its assessment of the evidence presented in a related abuse and neglect proceeding, concluding that no trial jury could convict the parents based on that evidence. The State argued that the Circuit Court had exceeded its legitimate powers by dismissing the indictment.Previously, the Circuit Court had dismissed the indictment on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support it. The court based its decision on its knowledge of the evidence from a related abuse and neglect proceeding, and its opinion regarding the State's likelihood of obtaining convictions by a petit jury.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted the writ of prohibition. The court found that the Circuit Court had exceeded its legitimate powers by dismissing the indictment based on its improper consideration of evidence in a prior proceeding. The court held that a circuit court may not grant a defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on the basis of the sufficiency of the evidence or whether a factual basis for the indictment exists. The court concluded that the State was entitled to the requested writ of prohibition, as the Circuit Court's order was clearly erroneous as a matter of law, and the State would be damaged in a way that was not correctable on appeal. View "State of West Virginia ex rel. State of West Virginia v. Gwaltney" on Justia Law