Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, holding that the circuit court erred in refusing to admit the mother's prior conviction as impeachment evidence pursuant to W. Va. R. Evid. 609, and the error was not harmless.The four-month-old victim suffered permanent and life-altering injuries as a result of non-accidental trauma. In his defense, Defendant sought to introduce evidence that two years earlier the mother had been convicted in Virginia of felony child endangerment for refusing to provide nutrition and medical care to her six-month-old child. The circuit court excluded the evidence under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) and refused to admit it for impeachment purposes under Rule 609. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court clearly erred in excluding the evidence of the mother's prior felony conviction; and (2) the error was reversible, entitling Defendant to a new trial. View "State v. Michael C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court resentencing Petitioner to eighty years of incarceration in connection with his conviction for first-degree robbery, holding that the sentencing court plainly erred by failing to follow W. Va. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(1) when sentencing Petitioner.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the sentence imposed by the circuit court was disproportionate to his crime and that the circuit court failed to make particularized findings to justify the sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order without reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims, holding (1) the plain language of Rule 32(b)(1) requires that the sentencing court receive and consider a presentence report before sentencing unless certain conditions are met; and (2) the sentencing court in this case erred by sentencing Petitioner without meeting all the conditions listed in Rule 32(b)(1). View "State v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to life in prison pursuant to the habitual criminal statute, W. Va. Code 61-11-18, holding that the circuit court did not err.After Petitioner was convicted of one count of fleeing in a vehicle with reckless disregard the State filed an information charging him as a recidivist with three felony convictions. Thereafter, the legislature amended the habitual criminal statute, making the changes effective on June 5, 2020. The circuit court applied the 2020 version of the recidivist statute and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly applied the 2020 version of W. Va. Code 61-11-18 rather than the 2000 version of the statute; and (2) the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crimes Petitioner committed. View "State v. Horton" on Justia Law

West Virginia Code of State Rules 64-10-8, “Blood Analysis; Standards and Methods,” sets forth the standards and methods the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health has established to ensure the accuracy of blood tests administered to determine the amount of ethyl alcohol in a person’s blood. In 2020 the West Virginia Supreme Court unanimously concluded (Corley) that absent evidence that a diagnostic blood test complied with the requirements of Rule 64-10-8, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was justified in discounting the accuracy of any blood test results for purposes of an aggravated DUI enhancement.In two cases, the circuit courts affirmed the OAH finding that absent evidence that the blood diagnostic was performed in compliance with the Rule, the OAH was justified in assigning no weight to the results for purposes of an aggravated enhancement. The Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles appealed. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, declining to overrule Corley. The court rejected an argument that the diagnostic test results are entitled to a presumption of accuracy since they were included in the administrative record before the OAH and were not rebutted. View "Frazier v. Powers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Circuit Court of Monongalia County seeking clarification as to the application of the "hit-and-run statute," W. Va. Code 17C-4-1, pertaining to vehicle crashes concerning death or personal injuries and the obligations and duties of an individual involved in the crash as set forth in this opinion.Specifically, the Court answered (1) the Legislature's 2010 amendment of section 17C-4-1 did not create ambiguity in the statute; (2) to be criminally responsible for a violation of subsections 17C-4-1(a) and (d), a defendant's vehicle need not have made direct physical contact with the other vehicle or person whose death was proximately caused by the crash; and (3) the determination of whether a defendant was "involved in a crash" for purposes of subsections 17C-4-1(a) and (d) is a question of fact. View "State v. McClain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on the charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under W. Va. Code 61-7-7(a)(3), holding that Defendant's argument that the statute was so ambiguous that it was unconstitutionally vague on its face could not succeed.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to violating section 61-7-7(a)(3), which makes it unlawful for any person who is "an unlawful user of...any controlled substance" to possess a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face because it does not define "unlawful user" of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not argue or show that section 61-7-7(a)(3) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct of possessing a firearm while regularly using marijuana, he lacked standing to assert the claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face. View "State v. Wilfong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully sending or causing to be sent and/or possessing material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of W. Va. Code 61-8C-3(a), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err by (1) excluding expert testimony regarding the impact of Defendant's Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; (2) denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment or disqualify the prosecutor’s office; (3) determining that Defendant's recorded statement to law enforcement was voluntary; and (4) allowing testimony from the State's digital forensic computer analyst. View "State v. Delorenzo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court resentencing Petitioner, for purposes of this appeal, to an aggregate term of incarceration of five to twenty-five years for her convictions for child neglect resulting in death and gross child neglect creating a risk of substantial injury or death, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court violated her right under the Sixth Amendment to conflict-free counsel and that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose certain records. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that even if counsel's performance was deficient, the deficient performance did not adversely affect the outcome of the trial; and (2) there was no merit in Petitioner's contention that a Brady violation occurred in this case. View "State v. A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence that law enforcement discovered her minor child in Petitioner's home after the child absconded from her grandparents' supervision, holding that there was no error.Petitioner entered a conditional plea to one count of child concealment. At issue on appeal, was the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence that her child, who had been adjudicated as a status offender for truancy and placed in a temporary guardianship with her grandparents, was discovered in her home after escaping from her grandparents' supervision five months prior. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the officers had a reasonable belief that the child lived with Petitioner at her apartment and was within the residence at the time they entered; and (2) therefore, there was no error in the circuit court's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress. View "State v. Pennington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35(b), holding that the circuit court properly denied the motion as untimely.Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate W. Va. Code 61-5-8(g)(1) and one count of accepting a bribe in violation of W. Va. Code 61-5A-3. Petitioner later filed a first and then a second motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b). The circuit court denied the first motion on the merits and found that her second motion was not timely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's ruling that Petitioner's second motion seeking to reduce her sentence was not timely because it was filed more than 120 days after her sentencing hearing. View "State v. Keefer" on Justia Law