John E. Carrigan

The case involved Larry Eugene Smith, who was convicted in circuit court of possessing marijuana in violation of state narcotics law after an undercover trooper entered his home with an arrest warrant for a roommate, leading to a confrontation where Smith allegedly displayed a bowl containing the substance. The court reviewed multiple alleged trial errors, including the denial of Smith's motion to examine the alleged marijuana, improper communications between the court and jury during deliberations, a bailiff's conversation with jurors, and the refusal to poll the jury after a reported deadlock. The appellate court held that these errors, along with their cumulative effect, prejudiced Smith and denied him a fair trial under state and federal constitutions. It therefore reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by John Wayne Ford challenging his life sentence for first-degree murder after a jury found him guilty 'as charged' in an indictment for the slaying of Henry Russell. Ford argued that the verdict was invalid because it did not expressly state 'murder in the first degree' as required by statute, despite the trial involving a felony-murder theory based on robbery and burglary. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of relief, holding that the statutory definition of first-degree murder encompasses killings during robbery or burglary, the evidence supported that classification, and the verdict under the indictment was sufficient to uphold the sentence. The court reasoned that West Virginia law does not require separate indictments for degrees of murder and that the jury could only have found first-degree murder or acquittal based on the instructions and facts presented. A dissent argued the verdict supported only second-degree murder sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs suing a newspaper company and its manager for malicious prosecution after the defendants allegedly instigated the plaintiffs' arrest on kidnapping charges stemming from an incident where they gave rides to two female hitchhikers. The charges were dismissed at a preliminary hearing, and the plaintiffs sought damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding probable cause and malice that required a trial.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Keiffer v. Queen, the plaintiffs sued for damages arising from a 1965 automobile collision in which the defendant made a left turn into the path of the plaintiffs' vehicle on a two-lane highway. The jury awarded the driver $5,000 but returned verdicts of no damages for the two passengers despite uncontradicted evidence of their physical injuries. The court affirmed the driver's verdict but reversed as to the passengers and ordered a new trial limited to the amount of their damages, holding that the finding for the driver established the defendant's negligence and that the passengers' lack of contributory negligence plus proof of substantial injuries required an award of some damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Bonnie Jo Boury and her father against John Hamm and his father for personal injuries and medical expenses arising from a car accident on a rainy night in 1964, in which the vehicle skidded on a wet road, hit a utility pole, and ejected the occupants. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Ohio County that resulted in a verdict for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial, arguing errors in the jury charge and the refusal to direct a verdict on liability. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence presented a factual question of negligence for the jury, that skidding alone does not establish negligence, that the instructions on skidding and unavoidable accident correctly stated the law, and that there was no evidence supporting claims of failure to keep a proper lookout or other driver negligence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the West Virginia Board of Regents filing an eminent domain petition to acquire surface rights, rights of way, and aerial easements over railroad land for construction of a personal rapid transit system connected to West Virginia University. The railroads demurred, challenging the petition's sufficiency on grounds including lack of authority to condemn property already devoted to public use and failure to allege a public use or describe the property with certainty. The trial court overruled the demurrer, found the petition sufficient, and granted immediate entry; on appeal, the court affirmed, reasoning that statutes authorize the Regents as an arm of the state to condemn land for university purposes, that the state's eminent domain power is superior to that of utilities and requires no special legislation, and that the petition adequately showed a public use and described the property.

propertyprocedure