Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Office of the ClerkCase Topics: Criminal
Information about WV Supreme Court cases in the area of criminal law
?Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Jnauary term opinions summarized
Posted today were summaries of each of the 66 opinions issued in the January 2008 term of court, comprising 26 signed opinions and 40 per curiam opinions.
CASES HELD OVER: Four cases submitted for decision in the January 2008 term of court were held over, with an opinion to issue during the September term. Those cases are: (1) SAVARESE v. ALLSTATE INS. CO., No. 33443(Argued January 23, 2008); (2) RASHID v. TARAKJI, No. 33596 (Argued April 1, 2008); (3) STATE EX REL. HATFIELD v. PAINTER, No. 33668 (Argued April 16, 2008); (4) LAWYER DISC. BD. v. WILLIAM H. DUTY, No. 33069, (Original opinion withdrawn when the Court granted a petition for rehearing. The case was re-argued on May 25, 2008. Thereafter, Chief Justice Maynard recused himself from the case, and the case will be set for a second re-argument in the September term.)
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL :: Unauthorized entry not element of daytime burglary
STATE v. JOSHUA LEE SLATER, No. 33659 (MAYNARD, C.J.)(Starcher, J., dissenting)(Benjamin, J., concurring)(June 9, 2008). Affirming jury convictions arising from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County for the offenses of kidnaping, domestic battery, wanton endangerment and daytime burglary by breaking and entering. Holding that unauthorized entry is not an element of the crime of daytime burglary by breaking and entering. Further holding that the circuit court properly sentenced the defendant to life with mercy on the kidnaping charge, where there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that a concession was obtained. Further concluding that the sentence was within statutory limits and therefore not reviewable, that the jury's questions during deliberations were not the type requiring explanation beyond referring to the jury instructions, and that other objections to the jury instructions were waived by defense counsel.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL :: Insufficient evidence to support obstruction convictions
STATE v. WANDA CARNEY and BETTY JARVIS, No. 33522 (Per Curiam)(April 25, 2008). Reversing convictions for one count each of obstructing a police officer and conspiracy to obstruct a police officer. Because the conduct was effected without force, reiterating that any obstruction conviction must be supported by conduct that is unlawful or illegal. Holding that none of the three instances cited by the State involved illegal conduct, and there was no evidence that law enforcement's investigation was impeded. Because there is no evidence to support the obstruction convictions, the conspiracy conviction fails as well.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL :: Improper comment on defendant's silence
STATE v. MINDY KEESECKER, No. 33377 (Per Curiam)(Maynard, C.J., dissenting)(April 25, 2008). Reversing a jury conviction arising from the Circuit Court of Mercer County for six counts of sexual assault in the third degree. Holding that during closing argument the prosecutor improperly referred to the defendant's decision not to testify at trial. In light of the fact that the State's substantive evidence consisted only of the testimony of the victim and a prior written statement by the defendant, the prosecutor's statements were erroneous and prejudicial, and were not harmless error. Remanded for new trial.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, CONSTITUTIONAL :: Improper burden-shifting on ability to pay child support
STATE v. DAVID GABRIEL STAMM, No. 33505 (DAVIS, J.)(May 23, 2008). Reversing a conviction arising from the Circuit Court of Harrison County, for the felony offense of failure to meet an obligation to provide support to a minor under W. Va. Code 61-5-29. Holding, in syllabus point 5 that: "Insofar as W.Va. Code 61-5-29(3)(1999)(Repl. Vol. 2005) shifts to a defendant the burden of disproving a material element of the State's case, in violation of the due process clauses found in Article II, Section 10, of the Constitution of West Virginia, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that individual provision, severed from the remainder of W. Va. Code 61-5-29, is unconstitutional and unenforceable. W. Va. Code Sections 61-5-29(1) and (2) remain fully enforceable." Under the circumstances of the case, further holding that a jury instructions did not render harmless the constitutional error of the burden-shifting statute, because the jury instructions could have misled the jury into believing that the defendant bore the burden of proof as to his ability to pay support. Remanded for a new trial.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, EVIDENCE :: Clergy-communicant privilege, proof of age difference
STATE v. JOHN LOWERY, No. 33660 (Per Curiam)(May 27, 2008). Affirming jury convictions arising from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on two felony counts of sexual assault in the third degree and two misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse in the third degree. Holding that admission of a pastor's testimony was proper because the defendant did not make any confidential communication or confession to the pastor witness that was revealed by the pastor's testimony. Further holding that the trial court properly decided not to declare a mistrial after an outburst by a spectator, where the trial court immediately ejected the spectator and gave the jury a curative instruction. Finally holding that the four-year age difference required under the felony counts was adequately proven by the State's evidence that the victim was fifteen, the jury's ability to observe the appearance of the defendant, and the jury's knowledge of the fact that the defendant was married with children.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, EVIDENCE :: Expert testimony on diminished capacity
STATE v. DREU FERGUSON, JR., No. 33530 (Per Curiam)(February 28, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Mason County that denied a motion for new trial following a jury conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Holding that the circuit court improperly struck expert testimony presented by the defendant. Holding that the expert testimony sufficiently set forth that the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime would have prevented him from forming intent to kill, thus establishing the diminished capacity defense. Remanded for new trial.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, EVIDENCE :: Invited error, intrinsic evidence
STATE v. HAROLD LEE CYRUS, No. 33453 (Per Curiam)(February 20, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County imposing sentence on two counts of sexual abuse by a custodian and two counts of incest. Holding that the state did not improperly present expert testimony of a CPS worker and a nurse practitioner. Holding at the witnesses were presented as fact witnesses by the state, and that expert testimony was elicited by the defendant's counsel on cross examination, and was therefore invited error. Further holding that evidence of abuse in McDowell County was intrinsic evidence not subject to Rule 404(b). Finally holding that there was no error in the admission of evidence from abuse & neglect proceedings, where both the state and the defendant relied upon those proceedings.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, EVIDENCE :: Consumption of evidence and defendant's ability to test
STATE EX REL. RONALD W. HOLCOMB v. SADLER, No. 33669 (Per Curiam)(February 15, 2008). Denying a writ of prohibition sought to prevent enforcement of an order of the Circuit Court of Mercer County that would permit DNA testing of fingernail scrapings of the 5 year-old victim, in a prosecution charging first degree murder and death of a child by a parent due to child abuse. Holding that the possibility of consumption of the evidence did not unfairly infringe upon the defendant's right to independent testing and cross examination, where appropriate protocols are available to be followed during the testing, such that the defendant's request for relief in prohibition is not warranted at this time.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, HABEAS CORPUS :: Witnesses in prison attire and shackles
GARY ALLEN GIBSON v. McBRIDE, No. 33321 (Per Curiam)(Benjamin, J., dissenting)(June 12, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that granted habeas corpus relief and set aside a conviction for conspiracy to commit a murder that took place at the former West Virginia Penitentiary in Moundsville. Holding that the circuit court properly concluded that the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court allowed key witnesses for the State, who were incarcerated at the time of trial, to testify in civilian clothing and without shackles while key defense witnesses, who were also incarcerated at the time of trial, testified wearing prison attire and were forced to wear shackles.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, JUVENILES :: Separate charges subsequent to transfer
STATE v. JAMES LEE BROOKS, III, No. 33662 (ALBRIGHT, J.)(Starcher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)(May 23, 2008). Affirming jury convictions arising from the Circuit Court on Monongalia for the offenses of conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery, malicious assault, and conspiracy to commit malicious assault. (This case was granted only as to a single assignment of error.) Rejecting appellant's contention that his transfer from juvenile to adult jurisdiction solely on the charge of first-degree robbery precluded indictment on additional related charges, because those charges were formally not part of the basis for the original transfer. Holding, in syllabus point 2, that where the transfer is mandatory under W.Va. Code 49-5-10(d)(2)(2001)(Repl. Vol. 2004) "there is no statutory impediment that prevents the State form charging the juvenile by indictment with offenses that were not included in the transfer motion and/or hearing provided those additional offenses flow from the same factual allegations of criminal activity that were the subject of the transfer hearing."
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?CRIMINAL, PROCEDURE :: Late disclosure, denial of continuance
STATE v. OWEN HAWK, III, No. 33435 (Per Curiam)(April 7, 2008). Affirming conviction for the offense of fleeing from an officer while under the influence of alcohol, obtained following jury trial in the Circuit Court of Roane County. Holding that the lower court did not err in denying a continuance due to disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence on the evening before trial, where the evidence in question - the identity of another arrestee who may have witnessed certain conduct by the police after the defendant was arrested - was not material to the pending charges.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?HABEAS CORPUS, PROCEDURE :: Denial of relief without evidentiary hearing
STATE EX REL. JAMES BLAINE WALDRON v. SCOTT, No. 33434 (Per Curiam)(March 18, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of McDowell County that denied habeas corpus relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Holding that although the order failed to make specific findings as to why an evidentiary hearing was not required, such omission was harmless in light of the fact that each issue raised was exhaustively addressed in the circuit court's order; and further in light of the fact that several of the issues were previously and finally adjudicated in the petitioner's direct appeal. The circuit court addressed the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a very detailed fashion, and correctly held that the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard could not be satisfied.
??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?MOTOR VEHICLES, CRIMINAL :: Delay in receipt of officer's statement
CARPENTER v. CICCHIRILLO, COMMISSIONER, No. 33654 (Per Curiam)(February 28, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that reversed an administrative decision to revoke a driver's license for driving under the influence. Holding that a minor delay in receipt of the Statement of Arresting Officer did not deprive the DMV of its duty to investigate and consider license revocation once it received the paperwork. In light of the fact that the driver was not subject to actual prejudice because of the delay, the circuit court erred in reversing the DMV's revocation decision.??[Permanent Link] ?Google It!?
? The items on this page are archived by the day they are posted. Use the calendar to browse posts by day.
OPINION SEARCH
Full Text Opinions
Search 1991-Present COURT RULES
Links to Rules
Links to Forms CONFERENCE and ARGUMENT
Calendar
Live Webcast LINKS TO LAST 50 POSTS in this CATEGORY
View this page as XML [RSS 0.92]:
.
没有评论:
发表评论