Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner, a registered sex offender, was found guilty of failure to register or provide notice of registration charges. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to a term of years in the penitentiary but suspended the sentence and placed him on a thirty-six month period of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner failed to update the registry as to his current physical address and that this decision was knowingly made; and (2) Petitioner’s argument that the Sex Offender Registration Act’s provision that requires Petitioner to register changes to his registry information is unconstitutionally vague for failing to define the terms “residence” and “address” was unpersuasive. View "State v. Beegle" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and and attempted murder. Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison without mercy for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for a continuance of the trial; (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in excluding certain testimony; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of telephone calls Petitioner made while in jail awaiting trial; and (4) the trial court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a mistrial. View "State v. Dunn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree without a recommendation of mercy. Petitioner filed a post-trial motion for new trial or judgment of acquittal, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting expert opinion testimony from a deputy medical examiner; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the corpus delicti of murder; (3) the circuit court did not err by refusing to dismiss the case based upon the State’s destruction of evidence; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (5) the circuit court did not err in refusing to give three of Petitioner’s proposed jury instructions and with regard to the wording of the jury verdict form. View "State v. Surbaugh" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of twenty counts of possession of material visually portraying a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Petitioner also received a related recidivist conviction. Through a second amended sentencing order Petitioner was sentenced to a total period of incarceration of seventeen years. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it allowed expert opinion testimony concerning the ages of the children depicted in the images; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) Petitioner was not denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when the trial court allowed the State to present hearsay testimony; and (4) Petitioner’s convictions did not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. View "State v. Shingleton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of nine counts of rape, three counts of incest, and eight counts of sodomy for sexually abusing four girls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s pre-trial motion to sever the charges against him, as multiple trials would have resulted in four nearly identical and needless trials; (2) allowing the State to amend the indictment as to the years in which Defendant’s alleged conduct occurred because the amendment was “of form” and not substantial; (3) sentencing Defendant on charges he believed could not have occurred in West Virginia where the jury found that Petitioner committed the criminal conduct in West Virginia; and (4) denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence, as the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Frank S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve counts of wanton endangerment, one count of attempted murder, and one count of fleeing in reckless indifference to the safety of others. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not engage in impermissible participation in the plea bargaining process by, sua sponte, ordering Petitioner to undergo a second evaluation for competency and criminal responsibility prior to presentation of the proposed plea agreement; (2) the trial court did not err in permitting the guilty verdict to stand where there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict that Petitioner was sane at the time of criminal conduct; (3) there was no plain error in the trial court’s decision to uphold the guilty verdict on the attempted murder count; (4) Petitioner’s sentence was proportional; and (5) Petitioner’s remaining claims of error were unavailing. View "State v. Fleming" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. The circuit court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. After unsuccessfully seeking a new trial and review by the United States Supreme Court, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by failing to refusing to dismiss a juror who overheard a threatening remark related to her role as a juror during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) refusing to dismiss the juror after conducting a Remmer hearing; (2) permitting testimony from the victim’s family members during the mercy phase of trial; and (3) deciding not to give an instruction outlining factors for the jury to consider when determining whether to recommend mercy. View "Lister v. Ballard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree, nighttime burglary, and conspiracy. At issue in this case were two plea deals offered by the State. The first was a pre-trial offer and the second was a post-conviction offer regarding a recidivist action. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by giving erroneous advice before trial and by failing adequately to prepare him for his trial testimony. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Petitioner could not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. View "Raines v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging Caleb Toparis with the misdemeanor offenses of domestic assault and domestic battery. Toparis filed a motion to dismiss the information, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated because he had not been tried on the charges within one year of the execution of the warrant. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from dismissing the two misdemeanor charges against Toparis, contending that the circuit court erred in finding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that Toparis’s right to a speedy trial was not violated in this case. View "State ex rel. Sorsaia v. Hon. Stowers" on Justia Law

Donal Bowers was charged with alleged sex crimes against an eleven-year-old girl. The assistant prosecutor filed a motion in limine to obtain an advance ruling on the admissibility of the diary of the alleged victim. The circuit court concluded that the statements within the diary were admissible under hearsay rules. The court, however, excluded a certain two-page entry, reasoning that the statements, though relevant to the prosecution’s case and probative of the crimes of which Bowers was charged, presented an unacceptable risk of improperly inflaming the jury. Furthermore, the circuit court ruled that photocopies of the diary entries and illustrations would be substituted in place of the diary itself. The prosecutor filed this petition for extraordinary relief challenging the exclusion ruling and the substitution ruling. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ as mounded, holding (1) the circuit court manifestly erred in excluding the substantive two-page entry at issue; but (2) the circuit court’s ruling relating to the manner in which the diary should be presented to the jury was not manifestly in error. View "State ex rel. Games-Neely v. Hon. Gray Silver III" on Justia Law