In the Matter of Stephon W., a child under 18 years of age, and Betty B., parent or custodian of said child, No. 21861 and In the Matter of George Anthony W., a child under 18 years of age, and Joann O., parent or custodian of said child, No. 21862 (W. Va. March 25, 1994) (Miller, J.): 191 W.Va. 20, 442 S.E.2d 717:
Reversing a transfer to adult jurisdiction of two juveniles charged with murder, the Court held (1) the primary purpose of a preliminary hearing under W. Va. Code § 49-5-9 is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the subject child is delinquent; (2) juvenile transfer statutes, specifically W. Va. Code § 49-5-1 and § 49-5-10, provide certain due process rights, including the right to notice of the grounds for transfer, the right to present evidence, the right of cross-examine witnesses, the right to a neutral hearing officer, the right to counsel, the right to a record of the proceedings, the right to findings of fact and conclusion of law, and a right of appellate review; and (3) the prosecution may not rely on the evidentiary transcript of the preliminary hearing or findings of fact and conclusion of law made at such hearing to establish probable cause at the transfer hearing.
State v. Gary F., an infant, and Debbie F., his mother, No. 21412 (W. Va. June 28, 1993) (Workman, C.J.): 189 W.Va. 523, 432 S.E.2d 793:
Where primary witness at transfer hearing was not disclosed to the juvenile during discovery and testified telephonically, the Court reversed, holding that (1) the continuing disclosure requirement imposed by R. Crim. P. 16 applies to juvenile transfer proceedings and (2) telephonic testimony constitutes a denial of a juvenile's right to confrontation.
State of West Virginia ex rel. Cathy Galford v. Mark Anthony B., a juvenile, and Bonnie L.B., his mother, No. 21254 (W. Va. April 23, 1993) (Brotherton, J.): 189 W.Va. 538, 433 S.E.2d 41:
Ruling impermissible a school's strip search of a student suspected of stealing money from a teacher's purse, the Court held that in the absence of exigent circumstances which necessitate an immediate search in order to ensure the safety of other students, such as where drugs or weapons are involved, the warrantless strip search of a student by a school official is excessively intrusive and unreasonable under the fourth amendment.
Facilities Review Panel, et al. v. Juanita Coe, Circuit Clerk of Wood County, et al., No. 19123 (W. Va. June 11, 1992) (Brotherton, J.): 187 W.Va. 541, 420 S.E.2d 532:
This opinion, which modifies the opinion filed on October 17, 1991, which modified an opinion filed on February 5, 1991, establishes standards for the detention of juveniles.
Facilities Review Panel, et al. v. Juanita Coe, Circuit Clerk of Wood County; Honorable Arthur N. Gustke, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County, No. 19123 (W. Va. April 25, 1991) (Brotherton, J.): 187 W.Va. 541, 420 S.E.2d 532:
In a case adopting juvenile detention standards recommended by the American Bar Association and Institute for Juvenile Administration Juvenile Justice Standards, the Court held (1) before a juvenile can be transported, the proposed detention facility must be contacted to determine whether there is a vacancy; (2) juvenile detention facilities may not accept any juveniles beyond their licensed capacity; (3) a juvenile may remain in detention no longer than 30 days awaiting a dispositional hearing; (3) following the dispositional hearing, a juvenile may not remain in detention longer than 14 days before moving into an appropriate placement; (4) courts must develop alternative methods, such as home detention, electronic monitoring, and emergency shelters, when available detention facilities are operating at full capacity; and, (5) within 10 days after the end of each month, each detention facility must report to the appropriate agencies the names of detained juveniles, the nature of the charges against those juveniles, the dates of arrival and departure of detained juveniles, the number of juveniles detained on each day of the month, and an explanation of absences of detained juveniles from the facility.
Facilities Review Panel, etc., et al. v. Juanita Coe, Circuit Clerk of Wood County; Honorable Arthur N. Gustke, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wood County, No. 19123 (W. Va. October 17, 1991) (Brotherton, J.): 187 W.Va. 541, 420 S.E.2d 532:
This opinion modified on rehearing a previous opinion in order to adopt detailed guidelines for the secure detention of accused juvenile offenders. It has been subsequently withdrawn from publication pending further review.
E.B., Jr., V.E.B., and M.D.H., all juveniles under the age of eighteen years v. Honorable Thomas B. Canterbury and the Honorable John C. Ashworth, Judges of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, and Lawrence R. Frail, Prosecuting Attorney of Raleigh County, No. 19565 (W. Va. June 26, 1990) (Workman, J.): 183 W.Va. 197, 394 S.E.2d 892:
Under W. Va. Code § 49-5-1 to -18, the Court held that until a juvenile is transferred to adult jurisdiction, a grand jury has no authority to return a true bill of indictment against such juvenile.
State of West Virginia v. Elbert Wayne Giles, Jr., No. 19048 (W. Va. June 7, 1990) (Brotherton, J.): 183 W.Va. 237, 395 S.E.2d 481:
Where juvenile suspect was transported by officer to police headquarters without sufficient probable cause, was not taken before a judicial officer in a timely manner, and was extensively interrogated in an accusatory fashion, the Court determined that he had been "taken into custody," under W. Va. Code § 49-5-8(d), and should have been afforded a "written statement explaining [his] right to a prompt detention hearing, his right to counsel including appointed counsel if he cannot afford counsel and his privilege against self-incrimination," and that two inculpatory statements which were the product of the interrogation should have been suppressed.
Brenda G. v. West Virginia Department of Human Services, as Temporary Custodian of Cecil G., Jr., No. 19400 (W. Va. February 9, 1990) (Brotherton, J.): 182 W.Va. 535, 390 S.E.2d 6:
Where a juvenile was placed with the Department of Human Services for psychiatric testing in connection with a decision regarding his disposition under W. Va. Code § 49-5-13, the Court held such placement is permissible for a reasonable period of time, which is defined as only that amount of time necessary to perform the testing allowed under W. Va. Code § 49-5-13. The Court further held that the thirty-day limitation on similar testing under W. Va. Code § 49-5-13a after adjudication is triggered only by delivery of the juvenile to the custody of the Department of Corrections.