West Virginia Judiciary

Supreme Court of Appeals Argument Docket

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

All cases will be argued remotely and oral arguments will be webcast.

Terms of Use: To make the West Virginia Judiciary more accessible to the public, video recordings of oral arguments will be made available on the West Virginia Judiciary YouTube Channel as soon as time permits after each argument, unless the video recording is deemed to be confidential or otherwise inaccessible. By accessing the video recordings, the user agrees that the recordings are for informational and educational purposes only and may not be used for commercial or political purposes. Unauthorized use of the video recordings for commercial or political purposes may result in civil or criminal action against the user. Further, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is not a court of record for court proceedings. The video recordings do not meet the technical standard for a digital archive. If there is an icon beside the case title, it is a link to the oral argument.

Rule 20 argument - 10:00 a.m.


State of West Virginia vs. Justin K. Legg, No. 19-0875 The Circuit Court of Fayette County, West Virginia, certified the following questions to be answered by this Court:

1.For purposes of a crime under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(b), is an indictment specifically alleging a conspiracy involving a single defendant and only one other conspirator sufficient, under constitutional principles, to put the defendant on notice that he/she may be held responsible under section 4-414(f) for the quantity of drugs delivered or possessed with intent to deliver solely by the co-conspirator to other persons, who have also been charged in separate indictments alleging a single conspiracy involving the same co-conspirator, when those other persons are not named in the indictment?

2. For purposes of a crime under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(b), does section 4-414(f) incorporate the common law principle that overt acts have to be in furtherance of the conspiracy before the jury can attribute to the defendant “all of the controlled substances manufactured, delivered or possessed with intent to deliver or manufacture by other participants or members of the conspiracy”?

3. For purposes of the jury’s determination under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(f), is evidence of an unindicted co-conspirator’s drug transactions with others not named or identified in the indictment admissible for the jury’s consideration in determining the amount of controlled substance attributable to the defendant for purposes of West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(b) subject to the knowing and foreseeable principles outlined in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) and its progeny?

4. For purposes of a crime under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(b), can the jury consider the volume of controlled substances distributed by the named, unindicted co-conspirator as part of his separate conspiracies with others not named or identified in the indictment for purposes of the jury’s determination under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(f), even when the State does not intend to introduce evidence to show that the defendant had any connection or dealings with any of the unindicted co-conspirator’s other alleged, separately indicted co-conspirators?

5. Where the indictment charges a conspiracy in violation of West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(b) involving the defendant and only one other named, but unindicted co-conspirator, may counsel for the defendant continue to represent similarly situated, but separately indicted defendants who were not named in the defendant’s indictment but who are alleged to have had separate conspiracies with the same, named unindicted co-conspirator as identified in the defendant’s indictment, when the State seeks to offer evidence in the defendant’s trial of drug transactions between the named, unindicted co-conspirator and the other separately indicted individuals for the jury to consider in determining the quantity of controlled substance attributed to the defendant under West Virginia Code § 60A-4-414(f)?

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General vs. Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, No. 19-1056 Continued

State ex rel. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, et al. vs. Hon. David W. Hummel, Jr., Judge; Axiall Corporation; and Westlake Chemical Corporation, No. 19-0978 Continued

Martin P. Sheehan, Trustee vs. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., No. 19-1082 Continued

Hardwick Smith Johnson, et al. vs. Nancy Singleton Case and Deborah A. McGee, No. 19-1018 This suit arises from a close municipal election in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, held on June 11, 2019. The parties were candidates for five seats on the Harpers Ferry Town Council. The petitioners seek judicial review of an order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County that overturned an order of the Harpers Ferry Election Contest Tribunal and found that four provisional ballots cast should be counted. In cross assignments of error, the respondents assert that members of the Harpers Ferry Election Contest Tribunal should have been disqualified and that Respondent Nancy Case had standing to challenge the election contest.

Rule 19 argument


State ex rel. EAN Holdings, et al. vs. Hon. Ronald E. Wilson, Judge; David Stanley Consultants, LLC; and Mark Ash, Jr., No. 19-0900 In this original jurisdiction matter, the petitioners ask the Court to prohibit the Circuit Court of Ohio County from proceeding in the underlying civil action. The petitioners assert that the civil action should be dismissed or transferred to the State of Ohio, where venue and jurisdiction would be proper. The respondents argue that the petition before this Court is without merit and should be refused.

State ex rel. Rhonda L. Wade, Marshall County Prosecuting Attorney vs. Hon. David W. Hummel, Jr., Judge; and H.D., No. 19-1047 In this original jurisdiction matter, the petitioner asks the Court to prohibit the Circuit Court of Marshall County from enforcing its pre-trial order that prevents the State from playing a recording of the defendant in the underlying criminal proceeding at trial. Briefs are on file in the clerk's office. Chief Justice Armstead disqualified. Judge Beane assigned.

Robert Heavner vs. Three Run Maintenance Association, Inc., No. 18-1080 In this property action, the petitioner appeals orders of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County (1) finding that the respondent had a fifty-foot easement over a subdivision’s roads; (2) granting the respondent a temporary, then permanent, injunction against the petitioner; (3) finding the petitioner’s actions were a private nuisance; and (4) awarding the respondent attorney’s fees. The respondent argues that the circuit court’s orders are correct and should be affirmed.

In the Matter of: Stephen D. Massie, Magistrate, No. 20-0190 Withdrawn