Vintage

Summaries of the first seven opinions issued in the September 2008 term of court were posted today. One opinion, Savarese v. Allstate, resolved a case that was argued in the January term of court. Unless otherwise stated, in all opinions issued this term, Justice Albright is not participating and Senior Status Justice McHugh is sitting by temporary assignment.

The final day of arguments in the September term of court is Tuesday, October 29.

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 v. WILLIAM H. DUTY, No. 33069, (Original opinion withdrawn when the Court granted a petition for rehearing.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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

STATE v. JOSHUA C. WEARS, No. 33529 (Per Curiam)(June 26, 2008). Affirming a conditional guilty plea arising from the Circuit Court of Putnam County for one count of Third Degree Sexual Assault. Holding that the circuit court properly excluded certain evidence related to prior sexual conduct of the victim, where despite ample opportunity the defendant did not produce a proffer of evidence that was adequate to overcome the rape shield statute.

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.

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.

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.