Background
Jeremy Michael Weekley was indicted in February 2025 for sex crimes against two minor girls, including first-degree sexual assault and sexual abuse by a custodian against A.M. The indictment alleged the crimes occurred “on or about” an unspecified day in February 2018. At the January 2026 trial, A.M. testified for the first time that the assault occurred on the morning of February 24, 2018, explaining she recalled the date in 2024 after finding photographs on her phone. Defense counsel moved to dismiss, arguing the State had failed to disclose the specific date. The circuit court denied dismissal but granted a mistrial.
Following the mistrial, Weekley moved to disqualify the Tyler County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, seeking to call Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kyle Elliot as a witness regarding when A.M.’s mother disclosed the date. The State opposed the motion and filed a motion in limine to preclude Elliot’s testimony. In an April 23, 2026 order, the circuit court found no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, ruled that Elliot’s testimony was not material, and granted the State’s motion to exclude him as a witness. Paradoxically, the court nonetheless disqualified the prosecutor’s office as a “preemptive action” to prevent “repackaged” defense motions and appointed a special prosecutor.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate authority by disqualifying the elected prosecuting attorney without a valid reason appearing on the record. Applying the five factors from State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, the Court found the State satisfied the criteria for extraordinary relief: the State had no adequate remedy by direct appeal; the disqualification deprived the State of its constitutional right to prosecute through its duly elected officer; and the circuit court’s order was clearly erroneous as a matter of law.
The Court emphasized that under State ex rel. Preissler v. Dostert, a prosecuting attorney is a constitutional officer whose duties emanate from the West Virginia Constitution. Before disqualification, the reasons must appear on the record and demonstrate a failure or inability to fulfill official responsibilities. Here, the circuit court expressly found no prosecutorial misconduct and no material testimony from the assistant prosecutor, rendering the “preemptive” disqualification wholly insufficient to override the prosecutor’s constitutional mandate.
The Court also modified Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Lewis to clarify that when a circuit court erroneously disqualifies an elected prosecuting attorney, such action is “so flagrant” as to deprive the State of its right to prosecute, satisfying the Lewis test for State petitions in criminal cases. The Court rejected Weekley’s argument that the assistant prosecutor was a necessary witness, noting the circuit court properly excluded the testimony as immaterial to the elements of the offense or the victim’s credibility.
Key Takeaways
- A circuit court exceeds its legitimate authority when it disqualifies an elected prosecuting attorney without valid reasons appearing on the record, particularly when done merely as a “preemptive” measure to avoid future motions.
- The State may seek a writ of prohibition when a trial court’s disqualification of the elected prosecutor deprives the State of its constitutional right to prosecute, even if a special prosecutor could technically be appointed.
- Before disqualifying a prosecuting attorney, a court must find a failure or inability to fulfill official duties; the prosecutor’s constitutional and statutory mandate cannot be overridden absent such a showing.
- Assistant prosecutors need not be disqualified as witnesses when their testimony is not material to the elements of the charged offense or the credibility of witnesses, and the State is not required to prove the specific date of a sex crime.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the constitutional independence of elected prosecuting attorneys in West Virginia and limits the judiciary’s power to remove them absent clear evidence of misconduct or inability to serve. By modifying the Lewis test, the Court ensured that the State retains a meaningful mechanism to challenge baseless disqualifications that infringe on the executive branch’s prosecutorial function.
The ruling also clarifies that trial courts cannot use disqualification as a case-management tool to “preempt” defense motions, protecting the electorate’s choice of prosecutor and maintaining the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches in criminal proceedings.