Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction on appeal, holding (1) Petitioner relinquished the right to have the jury instructed on the issue of self-defense in the manner he argued on appeal; (2) Petitioner waived his right to claim error in the admission of a prior statement given by Petitioner's son to the police; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (4) the substantial rights of Petitioner were not affected by improper remarks by the prosecutor, and accordingly, there was no plain error; and (5) the circuit court did not err in denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court committed error by failing to grant Defendant's motion to strike a prospective juror for cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion. In so holding, the Court took the opportunity to overrule State v. Phillips, which permitted a new trial whenever a criminal defendant used a peremptory strike to remove a prospective juror that should have been struck for cause, holding (1) a trial court's failure to remove a biased juror from a jury panel does not violate a criminal defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury if the defendant removes the juror with a peremptory strike; and (2) to obtain a new trial for having used a peremptory strike to remove a biased juror from a jury panel, a criminal defendant must show prejudice. View "State v. Sutherland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy and sentenced to life in prison without mercy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in determining that Defendant's statement to law enforcement should not be suppressed because the prompt presentment statute had not been violated; (2) did not deny Defendant's due process rights when it denied counsel's motion to withdraw based on an asserted conflict of interest, as there was no actual conflict, and Defendant waived the alleged conflict of interest claim; and (3) did not deny Defendant's right to a fair trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct due to the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, as the prosecutor's remarks neither clearly prejudiced Defendant nor resulted in manifest injustice. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted on two counts of first degree murder and one count of first degree arson. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murders and a sentence of twenty years for the arson, to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, that the trial court did not err in (1) permitting the trial to be held in the circuit court of Mercer County; (2) admitting into evidence a statement Defendant made regarding his observation of the two dead victims; (3) admitting into evidence certain of Defendant's telephone conversations from jail; (4) finding the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for first degree murder; and (5) permitting a photographic array in the identification of Defendant. In addition, any error in the admission of certain testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and Defendant's sentence was proportionate to the offenses committed. View "State v. Blevins" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, death of a child by a guardian or custodian, and child abuse resulting in injury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) granting a change in venue; (2) allowing testimony by a State's witness concerning polygraph test results without ordering a mistrial or providing a curative instruction because the polygraph references were not elicited from or about Defendant; (3) deeming evidence of a child psychologist regarding the character of the accused to be admissible; and (4) permitting the introduction of photographs of the victim taken during the time she was unconscious in the hospital. Lastly, the Court ruled that Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not adequately developed for consideration on direct appeal. View "State v. Meadows" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without mercy after he pled guilty in 1992 to murder in the first degree. No appeal of Defendant's 1993 sentencing order was timely filed, but in 2010, Defendant filed a pro se petition with the Supreme Court seeking habeas relief. The Court granted relief by ordering that Defendant be re-sentenced for purposes of presenting his petition for appeal. Resentencing orders enlarging the appeal period were entered by the lower court in 2011, after which Defendant filed his appeal with the Supreme Court asserting procedural and constitutional error. Specifically, Defendant contended that the plea should be vacated and the case remanded for trial because the plea he entered was not knowingly and intelligently made. The Supreme Court affirmed the 2011 sentencing order of the circuit court, holding that no valid basis existed for the procedural or constitutional error asserted. View "State v. Boyce" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of uttering one Federal Reserve note and of possession with intent to utter eight counterfeit Federal Reserve notes. In common language, these notes are referred to as twenty-dollar bills. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that Defendant's conduct was prohibited by West Virginia law, as (1) a "note" as that term is used in W. Va. Code 61-4-3 includes Federal Reserve notes issued by the Federal Reserve System, and a Federal Reserve note issued by the Federal Reserve System is a note of a "banking institution" as that term is used in section 61-4-3; and (2) a "forged bank note" as that term is used in W. Va. Code 61-4-6 includes Federal Reserve notes issued by the Federal Reserve System. View "State v. Moffit" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seventeen counts of felony and misdemeanor sexual offenses. Defendant did not file an appeal until he was resentenced. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by (1) allowing the indictment to be amended, (2) allowing the State to call a witness that was not named on the witness list, and (3) allowing the State to recall a witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the amendment to the indictment; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the witness not previously on the witness list to testify, as defense counsel's preparation or presentation was not damaged by the late disclosure; and (3) Defendant failed to preserve and adequately brief the issue of the State recalling a witness during the State's case-in-chief. View "State v. Larry A. H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of sexual assault in the first degree, seven counts of sexual abuse by a custodian or parent, and one count of conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing primarily that his confrontation and due process rights were violated because he was not permitted to let the jury know that the complaining witness, R.M., had made various statements that sexual misconduct had been perpetrated against her by individuals other than Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) given the age and history of R.M. and the specificity of her statements relating to Defendant, the exclusion of Defendant's evidence regarding R.M.'s reports and statements of sexual misconduct committed against her by others was within the trial court's discretion; and (2) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree against a minor. Defendant appealed, contending that the circuit court erred by allowing the victim to testify that Defendant assaulted her more than ten or twelve times. Defendant did not object to this testimony at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court did not plainly err in permitting the prosecutor to introduce, through the victim's testimony, evidence pertaining to Defendant's other, extraneous bad acts against the victim, as the evidence challenged by Defendant was intrinsic evidence, inextricably intertwined with the acts charged in the indictment. Accordingly, the evidence did not fall under W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b)'s limitations on admissible evidence. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law