Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. This was Petitioner's second appeal of that conviction; his conviction was first upheld on direct appeal to the Supreme Court. In his initial appeal, among other assignments of error, Petitioner asserted that admission of an autopsy report without the accompanying testimony of the authoring pathologist violated his Confrontation Clause rights. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Mechling, which overruled Kennedy I as to the Court's holding on the Confrontation Clause issue, Petitioner filed another motion for a new trial. The circuit court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the admission of the autopsy report and testimony reiterating its contents violated the Confrontation Clause under current caselaw, the errors found by virtue of applying the new rule of Mechling were not redressable by Petitioner, and therefore did not afford him a new trial. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea to first degree robbery. His guilty plea was conditioned upon an appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the circuit court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in permitting the State to use evidence obtained from Petitioner's home pursuant and subsequent to a warrantless search and seizure because the search was valid, as the police the police had reasonable grounds to believe that if an immediate arrest were not made, Petitioner might, during the time necessary to procure a warrant, endanger the safety of others. View "State v. Farley" on Justia Law

The warden of a correctional complex appealed the decision of the circuit court vacating a conviction entered against Respondent for one count of sexual assault in the first degree, one count of child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, and one count of incest, and awarding him a new trial. As grounds for its decision to grant Respondent relief on his habeas corpus petitions, the circuit court cited three errors committed by the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of habeas corpus, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in granting a new trial to Respondent without the proper demonstration that Respondent's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated by the giving of one particular instruction; (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling that the limitation of character witnesses to four was constitutionally deficient; and (3) the circuit court erred in funding the evidence was insufficient to convict Respondent of the rape of the victim. View "McBride v. Lavigne" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second degree sexual assault, incest, detaining with intent to defile, and conspiracy. Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court (1) erred by allowing the State to admit in its case in chief eight pornographic file names obtained during a search of his personal laptop computer, (2) erroneously applied the Rape Shield statute in refusing to allow him to admit into evidence a notebook maintained by the victim, and (3) erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of his illegal drug and alcohol use. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order denying Petitioner's motion for a new trial, holding (1) the court committed reversible error by failing to fully evaluate the admissibility of pornographic file names pursuant to a McGinnis hearing; and (2) the court erroneously applied the Rape Shield statute in refusing to allow Petitioner to admit the victim's notebook into evidence. Remanded. View "State v. Jonathan B." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the second degree murder of his former girlfriend. Defendant appealed, submitting several assignments of error. The State conceded error with regard to two of those assignments but argued that the errors were harmless. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) it was constitutional error under the Confrontation Clause for the trial court to admit into evidence the autopsy report and to permit the chief medical examiner for the State to testify as a surrogate witness in place of the deputy assistant medical examiner, who conducted the forensic investigation into the circumstances of the victim's death; and (2) the error was not harmless, as the State failed to demonstrate that the autopsy finding and conclusions did not contribute to the verdict. View "State v. Frazier" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the offense of escape from custody. Thereafter, Petitioner appealed his conviction pursuant to the sentencing order of the circuit court, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to this offense because his act of leaving home confinement only amounted to a violation of pre-trial bail condition rather than an escape from custody or confinement. Petitioner further argued that the lower court erred by ordering him to pay restitution to the State for costs associated with apprehending him following his unauthorized departure from home confinement. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Petitioner's conviction, holding that Petitioner effectively waived or forfeited his right to appeal his conviction by failing to enter a conditional guilty plea or otherwise preserve the matter for review; and (2) reversed the imposition of restitution, holding that the restitution provisions of the Victim Protection Act do not extend to recovery of costs or expenses incurred by governmental agencies in apprehending perpetrators of criminal acts. View "State v. McGill" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff learned his confidential medical and psychological information at St. Mary's Medical Center had been improperly accessed, Plaintiff filed several state-law claims against St. Mary's. The circuit court granted St. Mary's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state-law claims based upon its conclusion that the claims were preempted by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In addition, St. Mary's asserted a cross assignment of error arguing that the circuit court erred by finding that Plaintiff's claims did not fall under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) and concluding, therefore, that Plaintiff was not required to file a notice of claim and screening certificate of merit. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court's order insofar as it granted St. Mary's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based upon its conclusion that Plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted by HIPAA, holding that Plaintiff's state-law claims for the wrongful disclosure of his medical and personal health information were not preempted by HIPAA; and (2) affirmed the order to the extent it found Plaintiff's claims did not fall under the MPLA. Remanded. View "R.K. v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

As a result of a criminal investigation, Petitioner and others were arrested at Petitioner's home. Petitioner was prosecuted in federal court. The State filed a petition for forfeiture of the property owned by Petitioner. Petitioner later pleaded guilty to several drug offenses. The State then filed a summary judgment motion in the forfeiture action, which the circuit court granted. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment and its determination that the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions were not violated. Because the Court was unable to assess whether the forfeiture of Petitioner's real property in this case violated the Excessive Fines Clause in the West Virginia Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the case was remanded for further development of the record. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Respondent was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with mercy. The circuit court subsequently granted Respondent habeas corpus relief, finding that Respondent's counsel in his second trial was ineffective. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in (1) ruling that it was constitutional error for the trial court to fail to advise Respondent of his right to testify and not to testify and that trial counsel's failure to enforce this right rose to the level of ineffectiveness; and (2) determining that Respondent's co-defendant was not a credible witness. View "Ballard v. Hurt" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed an order of the circuit court denying his petition for a writ of prohibition. Petitioner had sought extraordinary relief in the court below in an effort to stop the Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from pursuing license revocation proceedings against him. Petitioner contended that he was deprived of constitutional and statutory protections because DMV had no shown good cause for the repeated delays in hearing the license revocation matter. The lower court denied relief in prohibition, concluding that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Hare posed identical issues and rendered Petitioner's request moot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower court misinterpreted the Court's holding in Hare by failing to observe its limited application to facts not present in this case; and (2) the circuit court was required to address problems in the record. Remanded to determine whether good cause was established under existing due process standards for granting the continuances in Petitioner's DMV proceeding, and for entry of a final order capable of review. View "Holland v. Miller" on Justia Law