Latest news with #SupremeCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals upholds murder case's verdict
princeton – Justices with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia have upheld the 2022 second-degree murder conviction of a Mercer County woman who was charged in her boyfriend's shooting death. Monica Suzette Hartwell of Lashmeet was sentenced in September 2022 to a determinate term of 40 years in prison. A jury had convicted Hartwell on Aug. 11 that same year of second-degree murder for the July 26, 2020 shooting death of her boyfriend, Michael Walker, outside their Presbyterian Avenue home in Lashmeet. Hartwell was initially charged with first-degree murder and was later found competent to stand trial. After Walker's death, Hartwell had told troopers with the West Virginia State Police Princeton detachment that she believed Walker was possessed. Witnesses testified during her trial that Hartwell and Walker had been drinking that day, adding that Walker had spoken about Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. Troopers found Walker on the home's front porch. Hartwell was in the home and told the troopers that the shotgun was in the living room. Walker had been shot in the head. Hartwell's attorney Ryan Flanigan, who is now a circuit court judge in Mercer County, made motions during her sentencing for a new trial and for a judgement of acquittal. The presiding judge, Circuit Court Judge Derek Swope, who is now retired, denied both motions. Flanigan told the court that Hartwell had been a productive member of society before she became ill, and that she had been struggling with mental illness her entire life. A member of Hartwell's family told the court she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and other mental conditions. Attorney David Kelley argued the appeal before the state Supreme Court of Appeals, said Prosecuting Attorney Brian K. Cochran, who prosecuted the case in 2022. The West Virginia Attorney General argued the appeal on behalf of the Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. According to court documents filed May 22, the sole issue before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virgnia was the admissibility of a statement Hartwell made after she was taken into custody and handcuffed outside the home. Trooper S.K. Weikle and Hartwell were walking to the trooper's cruiser when he asked 'where's the gun?' to which Hartwell replied 'it's on the couch.' The question was asked before Hartwell had been read her Miranda Rights. Weikle later testified that officers had not yet secured the weapon, according to the supreme court's document. Officers only knew that the victim had been shot on the porch and that Hartwell immediately went into the home and was not seen by any witnesses during the 15 to 20 minutes it took for law enforcement to respond to the 911 call. Officers did not know if the weapon was still in the house and whether anyone else had access to it or whether it had been thrown out a window or back door 'where it might be found by a passerby or an inquisitive child.' 'For the reasons set forth herein, the judgement of the Circuit Court of Mercer County is AFFIRMED,' the justices concluded in the court document. During the 2022 hearing, Swope sentenced Hartwell to 40 years in prison with 789 days credit for the time she had spent in jail and on home confinement after her arrest. Swope then told her family that she would be eligible for parole in 10 years, and could discharge her sentence with good behavior within 20 years. 'I certainly believe she needs to get help in the penal system, the maximum amount they can give her,' Swope said then. Contact Greg Jordan at gjordan@
The Citizen
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
‘The throne is not under threat': Zulu royal faction defends King Misuzulu as court battle looms
The Zulu royal family will return to court this week over a dispute concerning the state's recognition of King Misuzulu. A faction of the Zulu royal family backing King Misuzulu kaZwelithini's ascension to the throne says it is not fazed by the upcoming court challenge to the state's recognition of the monarch. President Cyril Ramaphosa's lawyers have approached the Supreme Court of Appeals in Bloemfontein in an attempt to overturn a ruling made by the Pretoria High Court. In 2023, the court set aside the president's decision to recognise King Misuzulu as a legally recognised king of the Zulu nation. The court further ordered the president to institute a committee to investigate allegations of violation of customary laws in the identification of King Misuzulu. In a statement on Sunday, King Misuzulu's faction said the court hearing would have no impact on the throne, as he was installed in line with proper Zulu customs. 'There is no cause for alarm or speculation. The throne is not under threat. The king remains the rightful custodian of the Zulu nation, duly installed by both tradition and law. 'Even if the president were not to succeed in the matter before the court on the 29th in Bloemfontein, it would not advance anyone else's claim to the throne. As a matter of fact, no one has directly challenged the incumbent after the decision had been taken in Pietermaritzburg,' said family spokesperson, Thulani Zulu. Certificate of recognition controversy On 29 October 2022, Ramaphosa officially presented King Misuzulu with a certificate of recognition at Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. This was King Misuzulu's first official recognition as the king of the Zulu people in accordance with section 8(1) of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act of 2019. 'It's important to understand that the certificate handover does not affect the Ukungena Esibayeni ceremony, which is the traditional and only recognised method of installing a king in Zulu culture. 'The certificate represented recognition by the state — an administrative formality acknowledging that the Zulu nation had already installed its king. 'By accepting the certificate, we respected the democratic order that recognises, upholds and respects traditional leadership,' said Zulu. Another court battle for the Zulu king He said Misuzulu had successfully won most court battles concerning the throne. 'All court cases surrounding King Misuzulu kaZwelithini and the Zulu throne have been finalised, with His Majesty prevailing in every matter. 'The upcoming case is not about the throne, nor is it a challenge to His Majesty's authority. It concerns whether the President followed proper consultative procedures before issuing the certificate of recognition,' he said. The court case is set to take place over two days, from Tuesday, 28 May, to Wednesday, 29 May. ALSO READ: Five people killed in horror accident, north of Durban in KZN What does Prince Simakade's faction want? Meanwhile, the faction supporting Prince Simakade kaZwelithini remains hopeful that the state will dethrone King Misuzulu and allow for a fresh customary process to determine what they consider to be the rightful heir to the throne. They maintain that Prince Simakade, as the eldest son of the late King Goodwill Zwelithini, is the rightful heir to the throne. However, their interpretation of Zulu customs has been challenged by the faction supporting King Misuzulu's claim to the throne. This faction believes that King Misuzulu is the son of a great queen, and it was inevitable that he would ultimately lead the Zulu nation. NOW READ: Will Trump go after Malema and Zuma? IRR says 'Kill the Boer' chant created problems for SA
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
WV Supreme Court upholds convictions for adults sentenced for 8-year-old Raylee Browning's death
Del. Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, held up a poster of Raylee Browning, a child who died from abuse and neglect after her parents removed her from public school to homeschool her. The West Virginia House of Delegates passed House Bill 5180 with Raylee's Law as an added amendment on Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024. Raylee's Law would prevent parents from removing their child from school to homeschool them if a teacher has reported them for abuse. (Perry Bennett | West Virginia Legislative Photography) The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals says convictions must stand against three adults who are in prison for their roles in the death of 8-year-old Raylee Browning. The high-profile case has spurred attempted legislative changes — a bill known as 'Raylee's Law' — by a Democratic lawmaker who says the state's limited homeschool regulations create a loophole to shield child abuse and neglect. Raylee was being homeschooled. The girl was underweight when she died in 2018 from sepsis because of a severe bacterial pneumonia infection. Raylee's father, Marty Browning Jr., his wife and another adult ignored her deteriorating condition, a judge said, and court records said the adults failed to provide medicine or water. They were found guilty of neglect and sentenced to prison for 3 to 15 years. Marty Browning, his wife Julie Browning and Sherie Titchenell each appealed their convictions for a list of reasons that included a denial to a speedy trial and improperly admitting certain evidence. In three separate opinions issued Monday, the state Supreme Court denied their appeals, upholding the adults' 2022 convictions in Fayette County Circuit Court. Browning had been removed her from public school after her teachers reported suspected child abuse to Child Protective Services. According to testimony during the adults' trial, CPS didn't respond to the referral. The legislation, sponsored for multiple years by Del. Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, seeks to pause a parent's request to homeschool if there's a pending child abuse investigation against the parent. A bill including Raylee's Law passed the House of Delegates this year, but wasn't taken up by the Senate. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
eNCA
25-04-2025
- Business
- eNCA
Thales wants charges dropped
PIETERMARITZBURG - Former president Jacob Zuma has lost another round in his fight to have prosecutor Billy Downer removed from his arms deal corruption trial. Judge Nkosinathi Chili has denied Zuma leave to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeals. Zuma can petition the higher court directly, something his legal team said it would do. READ: Zuma corruption trial | Judge dismisses bid to remove Downer from case Judge Chili also heard an application from Zuma's co-accused, French arms firm Thales, to have the charges against them dropped. The arms dealers says two former employees who were important to their case have died. They are Pierre Moynot and Alain Thetard. As a result, Thales says it is stranded without witnesses. Zuma's legal team supports the application. And if Thales is successful, lawyers want charges against Zuma dropped. READ: Jacob Zuma | The highs and lows of the 'political chess master' The state rejects the argument and has asked the judge to do the same. It says Zuma and Thales delayed the trial, and there are other witnesses that can help build a case against the two accused. Judgment on the application is expected at the beginning of June. By: Aakash Bramdeo
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
WV Senate approves making judicial races partisan, cites concerns about electing ‘liberal judges'
Sen. Mike Stuart, R-Kanawha, speaks in support of a bill that would make judicial races partisan in West Virginia. (Will Price | West Virginia Legislative Photography) The state's Republican-dominant Senate approved a measure that would require judicial elections to become partisan races, with the bill sponsor saying West Virginians are 'concerned about liberal judges slipping through the cracks.' Opponents of the bill argued it would inject politics into judicial races — a role that should be guided by the law, not political ideology. In 2016, when Republicans took control of the state House and Senate, lawmakers made all judicial races in the state nonpartisan. 'Now we're moving our clocks back 10 years, which makes no sense to me,' said Sen. Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell, who voted for the 2016 measure. 'Why is it that you want to politicize judicial elections?' Senate Bill 521, sponsored by Sen. Tom Willis, R-Berkeley, would require that the political party affiliation of candidates be listed in the state Supreme Court of Appeals, circuit court judge, family court judge and magistrate primary and general elections. Willis said it can be difficult for voters to find information on judicial candidates. 'The proposition that judges are above the political fray is not consistent with the facts we see on the news every single day,' Willis said Wednesday on the Senate floor. 'To maintain the integrity of our courts system, we need to make sure that we're electing judges that are going to respect the constitution [and] the rule of law.' The bill passed with a 22-12 vote, with 10 Republicans joining the Senate's two Democratic members to oppose the measure. 'Judicial officers are different than other politicians. We want them to be above the political fray,' said Woelfel, who is Senate Minority Leader. 'You're doing a disservice to voters who I say are very informed and you're putting politics into judicial races.' Sen. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke, voted against the measure, saying he voted to make the races nonpartisan when the Senate passed the measure in 2016. 'We saw that need to remove that taint of politics,' Weld said. 'I don't know who's asking for this bill.' State Supreme Court Justice Beth Walker previously testified in opposition to the bill, saying she was one of the few people who had been a candidate in a partisan and nonpartisan election. 'What we do as judges is not political. When you take nonpartisan away and inject partisan politics into the election of judges, it calls into question that very important fairness, impartiality, and neutrality,' she told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee when they were vetting the bill. Willis argued that placing an 'R' by a judicial candidates' name would help voters know a judge's ideology regarding issues like religion, taxes, labor, individual freedom and more. 'If you don't think there's a difference between liberal and conservative judges, you're just not being honest,' he said. 'People come into these jobs with an ideology.' Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, pushed back on that, saying judges shouldn't be applying a political ideology while making a ruling. 'The judge applies the law, not whether they like the law,' Garcia said. 'A judge cannot come in and say, 'I don't like higher taxes, I'm going to give you a break this time … We want judges to be fair.' Sen. Mike Stuart, R-Kanawha, said the bill was 'a gift to voters,' who may not know candidates, better understand their choices on Election Day. 'What people want is either a liberal or conservative on the court,' he said. 'Partisan politics, that's the least of our concerns on this issue. It's to try to help voters understand who they're voting for … there's no question, voters are confused.' The measure would put in place partisan primaries in the primary election and a partisan general election to decide for the judicial races. Board of education elections would remain nonpartisan. The bill now goes to the House of Delegates for consideration. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
