Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative two questions certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, holding that there is no separate cause of action for excessive force by police officers during the course of arrest within the plain language of W. Va. Const. Art. III, 10.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) West Virginia applies to its constitution the rule established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), which requires a constitutional claim that is covered by a specific constitutional provision to be analyzed under the standard specific to that provision and not under substantive due process; and (2) in light of Fields v. Mellinger, 851 S.E.2d 789 (W. Va. 2020), a claim for excessive force by police officers brought under W. Va. Const. art. III, 10 is redundant to a claim brought under Article III, Section 6. View "Stepp v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing this complaint alleging violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), W. Va. Code 5-11-1 to -20, holding that Respondent was not entitled to qualified immunity under the WVHRA, and Petitioner's complaint sufficiently stated her claims.Petitioner, a former commercial driver's license instructor for Respondent, Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College, filed a complaint alleging that Respondent's decision to terminate her employment was predicated upon illegal age and sex discrimination. The circuit court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss, concluding that Respondent was entitled to qualified immunity and that Petitioner had failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standard. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Petitioner's complaint pleaded sufficient facts to survive a W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. View "Judy v. Eastern West Virginia Community & Technical College" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed two of Defendant's convictions in this case arising from a fatal drug overdose and remanded the case to the circuit court to resentencing, holding that the convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against putting an individual twice in jeopardy.Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), delivery of a controlled substance (Fentanyl), conspiracy to commit a felony, drug delivery resulting in death, and possession of Fentanyl. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in permitting Defendant to be convicted of both delivery of a controlled substance and delivery of a controlled substance causing death; and (2) there was no error in regard to Defendant's remaining two issues. View "State v. Duke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question from the circuit court by holding that Defendant's conviction for "attempted to commit an assault during the commission of a felony" was a qualifying offense under Sex Offender Registration Act, W. Va. Code 15-12-1 to -10, requiring Defendant to be a lifetime registrant.Defendant pled guilty to one count of attempt to commit a felony and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. At the time of his conviction and sentence Defendant was not required to register as a sex offender. Defendant later entered an Alford/Kennedy plea to two counts of failure to register as a sex offender. Defendant then filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis and motion in arrest of judgment, claiming he was not required to register. The circuit court certified the question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that the Act required Defendant to register as a sex offender for life because his conviction was based on a proffer that Defendant committed sexual assault in the third degree, which was a qualifying offense under the Act. View "State v. Conn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for knowingly providing false or misleading information to a member of the City of Martinsburg Police Department, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.Defendant's conviction arose from an incident during which Detective Jonathan Smith, who was not wearing a uniform, went to Defendant's home to investigate information regarding a potential fraudulent credit card charge associated with Defendant's address. Detective Smith, who did not initially identify himself as a law enforcement officer, asked Defendant personal questions, in response to which Defendant gave a false name. Later in the conversation, Detective Smith informed Defendant that he was a police officer, but Defendant did not subsequently notify Detective Smith of her real name. The circuit court convicted Defendant for violating section 509.05 of the City of Martinsburg Municipal Code. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Defendant was required to notify an investigating law enforcement officer of her real name after learning that he was in actuality a law enforcement officer. View "City of Martinsburg v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court that re-sentenced Defendant, for purposes of appeal, to an indeterminate term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years in connection for his conviction of one count of sexual abuse by a parent or person in a position of trust to a child, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his recorded confession and allowing Defendant's interview at the police department to be played for the jury; (2) the circuit court did not err by failing to give two jury instructions proffered by Defendant; and (3) Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not properly before this Court on direct appeal. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

With one exception, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition of habeas corpus relief from Petitioner's conviction on four counts of first-degree sexual abuse and related offenses against his daughter, holding that only the circuit court's imposition of a period of supervised release as part of Petitioner's sentence is reversed.Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and then refused to cooperate with a succession of appointed counsel or to file an amended petition under his demand were met. Without Petitioner's approval, the circuit court ultimately ordered counsel to file an amended petition raising all issues that counsel deemed to be viable. After an omnibus hearing, the circuit court denied relief on all grounds. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court's imposition of a period of supervised release did not pass constitutional muster; and (2) the circuit court properly denied habeas relief on all other issues raised by Petitioner and/or his counsel. View "Frank A. v. Ames" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a requested writ of prohibition and prohibited the enforcement of a circuit court order granting a motion to dismiss two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, holding that the circuit court failed properly to analyze the necessary factors for sanctions against the State.The defendant in the underlying criminal case filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, alleging that the State violated various discovery orders. The circuit court dismissed two counts of the indictment, declared a mistrial, and ruled that the subject matter of the dismissed counts could not be mentioned at trial on the remaining counts. The State filed this petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion when it dismissed the indictment as a discovery sanction. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion and committed clear legal error when it dismissed, as a discovery sanction, the two counts of sexual assault in the second degree. View "State ex rel. Smith v. Honorable Olejasz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, conspiracy, and entry of a dwelling. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to introduce certain evidence and by not requesting specific jury instructions and that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) Defendant's second assignment of error lacked merit. View "Goodman v. Searls" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition requested by the state arguing that the circuit court exceeded its authority in ordering the dismissal of indictments against Michael Daniel Bowman, holding that the State was entitled to the writ.Bowman was convicted of five sexual offenses including sexual abuse by a custodian. Bowman later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court rejected Bowman's argument as to why the indictments against him were defective but sue sponte found "fatal flaws" with the grand jury proceedings. The circuit court then ruled that Bowman's convictions were null and void and ordered that the indictments be dismissed with prejudice. The state then filed this original jurisdiction proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the requested relief and ordered that Bowman's convictions be reinstated, holding that absent any allegations of willful, intentional fraud, the circuit court had no authority to look behind the indictments, and the circuit court's inquiry should have ceased. View "State ex rel. State v. Honorable Hummel" on Justia Law