STATE v. BELL, No. 30022 (Albright, J.)(May 24, 2002).

Reversing a conviction obtained in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County of the felony of wanton endangerment. Under the facts presented, the Court concluded that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of brandishing. Holding that the offense of brandishing under WV Code 61-7-11 is a lesser included offense of wanton endangerment under WV Code 61-7-12. Holding further that appellantís request for a jury instruction on the statutory right of a land manager to prohibit firearms on the premises appeared to be germane to the theory of defense, and should be considered by the trial court upon any retrial.

STATE v. JOHNSTON, No. 30040 (Per Curiam)(May 24, 2002).

Reversing a conviction obtained in the Circuit Court of Harrison County on charges of fleeing a police officer and driving with a revoked license. Holding that the trial court erred in refusing to strike a juror who articulated a prejudice against people who drink for cause during jury selection.

SER GAMES-NEELY v. SANDERS, et al., No. 30359 (Albright, J.)(May 24, 2002).

Denying a writ of prohibition sought by the State to prevent severance of misdemeanor charges previously joined with felony charges and remand of the misdemeanor charges for trial in magistrate court. Rejecting Stateís contention that the trial courtís action violated the mandatory joinder requirement of W.Va.R.Crim.P. 8(a)(2). Holding that the statutory right to trial in magistrate court granted by WV Code 50-5-7 cannot be exercised if the misdemeanor trial in magistrate court would bar the felony trial in circuit court, based on constitutional double jeopardy principles, and that trial courts must weigh this balance when considering motions to sever.

OíDELL v. MILLER, et al., No. 29776 (Starcher, J.)(Maynard, J., dissenting)(May 24, 2002).

Reversing a defense verdict in a medical malpractice action obtained in the Circuit Court of Wood County. Holding that the plaintiffs below were denied their right to a fair and unbiased jury when the trial court refused to remove for cause a juror who had been represented by the defendantís law firm, had been treated by the defendant doctor, and understood the implications of an adverse verdict. In three new syllabus points, setting forth specific guidelines for trial courts regarding the evaluation of prospective jurors.