Background
On August 8, 2024, an altercation involving a firearm occurred outside the petitioner Anthony H.’s home between Anthony and the respondent Matthew S., his son-in-law. Anthony petitioned for a domestic violence protective order, and following an evidentiary hearing, the Family Court of Kanawha County granted the DVPO. The family court credited Anthony’s testimony that Matthew had pointed a firearm at him after arriving uninvited with his wife, and found that Matthew had placed Anthony in reasonable fear for his safety. Matthew acknowledged pulling the firearm from his center console, loading it, and placing it on his lap, but denied pointing it at Anthony.
Matthew appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, arguing he was defending his family. At the August 29, 2024 appellate hearing, the circuit court limited its review to the existing family court record and declined to accept new evidence. The circuit court reversed the family court, found Matthew’s testimony more credible, concluded that Anthony had instigated the confrontation by reaching into Matthew’s vehicle window, and determined that Matthew was entitled to assert a statutory defense under West Virginia Code § 55-7-22(c)-(d) — the state’s “stand your ground” provision — because he reasonably believed his family faced imminent danger of serious bodily harm. The circuit court terminated the DVPO, and Anthony appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Both parties appeared before the Supreme Court of Appeals as self-represented litigants. The court refers to the parties by last initial only to protect the confidentiality of a juvenile involved in the matter.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order terminating the DVPO, but did so on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of Anthony’s three assignments of error. The court held that Anthony failed to comply with Rule 7(d) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure by omitting critical items from the appendix record — specifically, a complete copy of the DVPO and the recording of the family court hearing. Without those materials, the court could not evaluate whether the circuit court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or whether its termination of the DVPO was an abuse of discretion. Citing the longstanding principle that an appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error from the record, the court declined to presume error in the absence of a complete record.
The court separately held that Anthony’s brief violated Rule 10(c)(7) because it contained no citations to the record, no citations to applicable legal authority, and no meaningful legal analysis — amounting to mere assertions rather than developed arguments. The court reiterated that skeletal arguments unsupported by authority do not preserve appellate claims. It further noted that, while it construes pro se briefs liberally, self-represented litigants are not excused from compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. Because Anthony failed on both procedural grounds, the court declined to reach the merits of his claims.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who fails to include the judgment appealed from and the relevant hearing record in the appendix forfeits appellate review; the Supreme Court of Appeals will not presume error from an incomplete record.
- A brief that asserts error without record citations, legal authority, or substantive analysis does not satisfy Rule 10(c)(7) and will not be considered on appeal, even when filed by a pro se litigant.
- West Virginia Code § 55-7-22(c)-(d) can provide a complete defense in civil proceedings — including DVPO proceedings — where a person outside the home reasonably believes deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily harm to themselves or their family.
- Circuit courts sitting in appellate review of family court DVPO orders are limited to the record created below and may not accept new evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder that procedural compliance is not a technicality — it is a threshold requirement even in high-stakes domestic proceedings. Litigants seeking to challenge a protective order on appeal must ensure the appellate record is complete and that their briefs contain substantive legal argument supported by authority. The court’s refusal to relax those standards for pro se parties underscores that self-representation does not create an alternative, more lenient appellate track in West Virginia.
The case also illustrates how West Virginia’s stand-your-ground statute, § 55-7-22(c)-(d), can be invoked as a defense in civil proceedings arising out of armed confrontations — a dynamic likely to recur in domestic violence and neighbor-dispute contexts where competing self-defense claims complicate credibility determinations at the trial level.