Docket Watch: Fall 2026 Oral Arguments

See below for a preview of the Fall 2026 Oral Argument Docket. The full schedule is available on the West Virginia Judiciary website. 

Wednesday, September 2

State v. Pinkerman, No. 24-234

  1. The Petitioner contends the circuit court erred in denying the Petitioner’s motion to suppress based upon a warrantless search of a pistol while at the Petitioner’s home. 
  2. The Petitioner contends the circuit court erred in denying the Petitioner’s motion to suppress based on the provision of false information to the magistrate in the application for the search warrant.
  3. The Petitioner contends the circuit court erred in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing regarding misrepresentations made to the grand jury by the State.
  4. The Petitioner contends the circuit court erred in denying Petitioner’s two challenges for cause based upon close relationships between the prospective jurors and law enforcement officers intimately connected with the case.

Tuesday, September 8

State v. Jarrett, No. 24-115

  1. Due Process, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the supervised release statute require a hearing and assistance of counsel whenever terms and conditions of supervised release are enlarged.
  2. Because the circuit court revoked Petitioner’s supervised release for violating enlarged terms and conditions that were imposed without a hearing and without counsel present, his sentence must be vacated.
  3. The circuit court found Petitioner violated a condition of supervised release prohibiting his presence “within two blocks of . . . specific locations where children are known to congregate.” This condition is void for vagueness as it is subject to arbitrary enforcement.
  4. The State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove a proximity contact violation. Moreover, and as a matter of plain error, the circuit court revoked Petitioner’s supervised release for violating a term that was inapplicable to the alleged conduct.
  5. The court abused its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s motion to have contact with his newborn daughter.

State v. Cabral, No. 24-245

  1. The circuit court erred in erred in allowing evidence of the Fentanyl contained within a sealed pack to be introduced as evidence.
  2. The court erred in allowing the search of the vehicle.
  3. The Conspiracy of Possession of a Controlled Substance, Second Offense, conviction is against the weight of the evidence.
  4. The court erred in allowing evidence of Petitioner's prior conviction in Washington County after ruling that evidence could not be admitted at trial.
  5. The Circuit Court erred in denying Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at trial, Motion for New Trial, and Post Trial Motion for Judgement of Acquittal.
  6. It was plain error for Officer Joshua Snyder to testify that he wanted to talk to either Petitioner or the Codefendant about the delivery of marijuana.
  7. The circuit court erred in sentencing the Petitioner to a 16-year determined sentence was excessive under the facts of the case and a motion for probation or alternative sentence should have been granted.
  8. The conviction and sentence of sixteen years for second offense Conspiracy is excessive and should be set aside.
  9. Petitioner believes was not tried before a jury of his peers.
  10. The court erred in denying a motion for mistrial after the jury pool was tainted by the comments of a prospective juror. 
  11. Codefendant Opitz was not allowed to testify that her husband may have planted drugs in the car.
  12. Petitioner's right to a fair trial was violated due to cumulative effect of numerous errors committed by the trial court.

State v. Crawford, No. 24-102

  1. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction on several charges, not the least of which was the charge of Use or Presentation of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony as well as both Possession with the Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance charges
  2. The Defendant’s 6th Amendment Constitutional Right was violated when the Court allowed the State to call as a witness an individual who was not identified on its proposed witness list and was not the analyst who performed the analysis upon which the State relied

Wednesday, September 9

State v. Reed, No. 24-341

  1. The trial court erred in failing to give Ms. Reed credit for time served on home incarceration post-conviction. The terms of her home incarceration were penal in nature, and failure to provide her with credit against her sentence violated the Double Jeopardy and Equal Protection Clauses of the West Virginia Constitution.
  2. The trial court erred in failing to give Ms. Reed credit for time served on home incarceration pre-conviction. The terms of her home incarceration were penal in nature, and failure to provide her with credit against her sentence violated the Double Jeopardy and Equal Protection Clauses of the West Virginia Constitution.
  3. The trial court erred in failing to give due consideration to Ms. Reed's right to rehabilitation. The trial court further erred by using an impermissible factor when determining her sentence, specifically referring to the fact that Ms. Reed was convicted of second-degree murder when that conviction was overturned due to errors made by the trial court.

State v. Dickens, No. 23-330

      Petitioner shot another bar patron who had brandished a six-inch blade. Two weeks into his murder trial, several participants tested positive for COVID-19. The court declared a mistrial over Petitioner’s objection. 

      In 2023, was a mistrial “manifestly necessary” where neither party requested one, both believed a one-week recess would be appropriate, and the court expressly refused to consider the parties’ position because it had decided before the hearing?

State v. Knotts, No. 24-197

  1. The lower court erred by ordering that the alleged victim testify via live, closed-circuit television despite the factors under West Virginia Code § 62-6B-3 not being met.
  2. The lower court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine Petitioner with evidence of 20-year-old misdemeanor domestic battery convictions in violation of Rule 609 and Rule 404 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.
  3. The lower court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence in the form of photographs and testimony that Petitioner’s home was unclean and unkempt in violation of Rule 401 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.
  4. The lower court erred by finding that its own error was harmless error, which is an appellate doctrine and is for this Court to decide.

Tuesday, September 22

State v. Valentine, No. 23-620

  1. The Circuit Court Erred in Denying the Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal following the close of the State’s case-in-chief.
  2. The Circuit Court Abused its Discretion by Imposing a Life Sentence Under the Recidivist Statute as it Violates the Proportionality Principle of the West Virginia Constitution.

State v. Battle, No. 23-511

      In Petitioner’s murder trial the defense theory of the case was that the evidence was consistent with an alternative suspect committing the murder as this suspect was at the scene with a similar firearm. 

      Did the court err in making comments bolstering the state’s case that implied this suspect could have been fully immune from a murder prosecution had this suspect confessed to this murder while pleading guilty in federal court to possessing that firearm?

Wednesday, September 23

State v. Swindler, No. 23-390

  1. The Circuit Court erred under West Virginia Code §61-11-19 when it arraigned Mr. Swindler on the first day of the Term of Court following the Term of Court he was convicted of the triggering offense in, therefore rendering the recidivist enhancement void. 
  2. The application of the West Virginia Recidivist Act to this matter, where Mr. Swindler’s current past qualifying offenses were not inherently violent, is unconstitutional as it violates the proportionality requirements of both the United States Constitution and the West Virginia Constitution, as applied. 
  3. The specific delineation of offenses under the newly revised West Virginia Recidivist Act is facially unconstitutional as it violates the proportionality requirements of both the United States Constitution and the West Virginia Constitution.

State v. Conley, No. 24-81

      The results of blood draws are only admissible in DUI cases to prove blood alcohol concentration if they are taken within two hours of arrest. Petitioner entered a conditional plea to DUI causing death and serious bodily injury because the circuit court ruled it would admit the results of two blood draws that occurred outside this window.

      Did the circuit court err by ruling the evidence admissible without limitation, including for purposes of proving blood alcohol concentration at the time of the arrest?

SER State of West Virginia v. Dougan, No. 25-556

      Did Fayette County Circuit Court exceed its legitimate authority and commit clear legal error by granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss portions of an indictment based on pre-indictment delay—depriving the State of its ability to pursue a criminal prosecution and conviction—upon nothing more than speculation as to the prejudice suffered by the delay?