Albright, Justice, concurring:
I concur with the result articulated by the majority
opinion. I write separately to address a disturbing trend in the manner in
which this Court periodically chooses to present new points of law. While
the majority opinion correctly decides the substantive legal matter, its pronouncements
are framed within the context of a per curiam opinion and no new syllabus
points were presented to formalize the ruling. As Justice Workman astutely
observed in her dissent to State v. Lopez, 197 W.Va. 556, 476 S.E.2d
This case portrays the increasing use of per curiam opinions to alter the law as it currently exists in West Virginia while declining to enunciate the change in a new syllabus point. It illustrates an evolving problem that this Court should correct. Although this is not the first example of this phenomenon, it is the one least justified. In the past some good reason has existed. It has occurred where there has been a compromise decision. It has occurred when the membership of the Court has been in a state of flux, with all the accompanying philosophical shifting, and a temporary court had the good judgment to recognize that it was not the time to make major policy changes in the law. None of those phenomenon are present here.
Id. at 569, 476 S.E.2d at 240 (Workman, dissenting).
In syllabus point two of Walker v. Doe, 210 W.Va.
498, 558 S.E.2d 290 (2001), this Court explained that [t]his Court will
use signed opinions when new points of law are announced and those points will
be articulated through syllabus points as required by our state constitution.
(See footnote 1)
Where such new points of law are not articulated through syllabus points
for whatever reason, the statements of syllabus point three of Walker
are applicable and support my assertion that per curiam opinions are authoritative
statement of the law. Syllabus point three of Walker explains:
Per curiam opinions have precedential value as an application of settled principles of law to facts necessarily differing from those at issue in signed opinions. The value of a per curiam opinion arises in part from the guidance such decisions can provide to the lower courts regarding the proper application of the syllabus points of law relied upon to reach decisions in those cases.
Syllabus point four continues in that vein: A per curiam opinion may be cited as support for a legal argument.
Justice McGraw incisively explained as follows in
his concurrence to Walker: Nor does a per curiam opinion's failure
to formally include a newly-forged legal principle in its syllabus relegate
such rule to the status of mere dictum. 210 W. Va. at 498, 558 S.E.2d
at 298 (McGraw, concurring). [A] new point of law cannot be ignored based
simply upon the fact that it was articulated in a per curiam opinion.
Consequently, while I agree with the conclusions
of the competent majority opinion, I would clarify the import of the opinion
by emphasizing that a new legal statement has the full force and effect of
law, notwithstanding the fact that it is presented in the format of a per
curiam opinion and is not formally articulated in a syllabus point. In conformity
with the longstanding principle of this Court that we will apply the plain
meaning of a statute, I believe that the majority opinion clearly stands for
the proposition that where a statute requires that an accused be given written
notice that refusal to submit to a chemical breath test will result
in revocation of his license, this Court will strictly enforce the plain meaning
of that statute.
(See footnote 2) The majority opinion conclusively establishes
that the legislature's use, in West Virginia Code § 17C-5-7(a), of the
term will is dispositive. In other words, will means
will, and this Court will apply the plain meaning of the statute.
The dissent raises another issue worthy of some
response by introducing the concept that form should not be elevated over
substance. In support of this proposition, the dissent quotes Holstein
v. Norandex, Inc., 194 W. Va. 727, 729 n.2, 461 S.E.2d 473, 475 n.2 (1995).
(See footnote 3) Indeed, I agree with the concept enunciated
in the cited footnote of Holstein, a case in which there was an allegation
that the appellant failed to comply with technical procedural rules for the
designation of a record within a certain time period. Key to the Court's Holstein
ruling, however, was that the appellant's alleged failure to comply with the
procedural rule was determined to be harmless, with no showing of actual prejudice.
Similarly, in Talkington v. Barnhart, 164 W.Va. 488, 264 S.E.2d 450
(1980), cited in Holstein, the issue was the plaintiffs' failure to
comply with the procedural rule requiring them to notify the defendant that the trial transcript had been filed and made part of the record, and no
actual prejudice was found. In Talkington, we explained that [w]e
will not sacrifice an appellant's substantial rights for rules that do not
result in prejudice. Id. at 493, 264 S.E.2d at 453.
The admonition against placing form over substance
is certainly valuable in the investigation of whether technical procedural
rules have been violated; the question thus would become whether the substantial
rights of the parties have been affected by the procedural irregularity or
oversight. In my opinion, however, that inquiry is constructive only in the
evaluation of alleged technical procedural errors. The omission alleged in
the present case rises above a mere procedural irregularity, and application
of the concepts utilized in evaluations of purely procedural imperfections
is improper and irrelevant. It is our rules of civil procedure [which]
seek to avoid emphasis of form over substance. Butler's Discount
Auto Sales, Inc. v. Roberts, 172 W.Va. 83, 86, 303 S.E.2d 722, 725 (1983).
(See footnote 4)
Our application of the plain and unambiguous meaning of a statute requiring written notification
that certain conduct will result in revocation of the right to operate a motor
vehicle should not succumb to such inapplicable and imprecise analysis.
(See footnote 5)
In its discussion of West Virginia Code § 17C-5-7(a),
the dissent also overlooks an important component of the statutory requirement.
The statute not only provides that the driver must be informed that his refusal
to submit to the test will result in revocation of his license; the statute
also provides that such notice must be in writing. The dissent essentially
advocates judicial revision of legislative pronouncements, or at the very
least judicial pardon for blatant violation of statutory requirements. The
dissent justifies this approach by the application of a slippery slope standard of substantial compliance
and exaltation of the procedurally-based principle that form should not rise
above substance. Through that means, the dissent approves the failure to comply
with two essential requirements of the statute: (1) giving the accused a proper
explanation of the consequences of a refusal to submit to the test, and (2)
giving that explanation in writing. In the defendant's case neither requirement
Indeed, as this Court observed in Rosier v. Garron,
156 W. Va. 861, 199 S.E.2d 50 (1973), the distinction between procedural
rules and substantive rights is frequently illusory. Id. at 875,
199 S.E.2d at 58. This Court should not surrender to the confusion that such
a distinction can generate. Purely technical procedural rules which do not
affect the substantial rights of the parties are a completely different animal
from what we encounter in the present case. The statutory rules enunciated
in West Virginia Code § 17C-5-7(a) constitute substantive rules designed
to preserve essential individual rights. Applying notions of substantial compliance
is simply improper.
As this Court candidly remarked in Board of Church
Extension v. Eads, 159 W.Va. 943, 230 S.E.2d 911 (1976), the legal
reasoning process of courts is inherently result oriented. Id.
at 953, 230 S.E.2d at 917.
Notwithstanding protestations on the part of countless thousands of appellate judges during the course of numerous centuries, legal reasoning in complex cases inevitably works backward from the result to the rule rather than from the rule to the result. For example, substantial compliance, intention of the drafters, clear and unambiguous, unconscionability, and constructive fraud are all legal phrases which can be used selectively to arrive at any given result which suits the fancy of the court.
Id. , 230 S.E.2d at 917-18. The legal approach commonly labeled substantial compliance is thus just another of a myriad of legal instruments designed to justify a desired result. It is a component of the legal elasticity which must exist in order to fashion law and protect equities; yet its utilization must not be unbridled. It must not be the justification for outright derogation of a statute. As the majority should have stated explicitly in a syllabus point, a statute which requires a written statement advising an individual that refusal to submit to a test will result in revocation of his driving privileges must be strictly applied in accord with its plain meanintg. Elusive concepts of law must not be invoked to justify a jurist's determination that violations of explicit and substantial statutory requirements should be condoned.
I am compelled to express one final point of disagreement
with the dissent. My final point is that the existence of the ultimate right
to challenge an initial suspension of driving privileges for failure to submit
to the secondary breath test does not correct or diminish the effect of giving
improper notice not complying with the statute. In the interim between the
entry of an order preliminarily suspending one's license for failure to submit
to the test _ which may be entered in as little as 48 hours after the arrest
_ and the rendering of a decision upon the administrative hearing _ which
may be several weeks or even months after the arrest _ the accused's license
is suspended without regard to whatever challenge the accused may offer at the hearing. The right to present
exculpatory evidence at that later hearing does not and cannot erase the effect
of that suspension, no matter how convincing later exculpatory evidence may
be. The suggestion in the dissent that failure to comply with the plainly
worded statutory requirement ought to be excused by reason of the later right
to such a hearing defies common sense.
Based upon the foregoing, I respectfully submit this concurring opinion.
The appellee contends that
this appeal should be dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with
Rule 73(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure and, more specifically,
the appellant did not designate the record within thirty days of the lower
court's dismissal of defendant Counts. We disagree for several reasons. First,
the appellant did, in fact, comply with Rule 73(a) by filing his designation
within the first thirty days available when he could lawfully file it in state
court without violating 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), which provides that, upon
removal of a state court civil action to federal court, ... the state
court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.
Second, assuming, arguendo, that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) is not applicable,
the alleged failure to comply with Rule 73(a) is harmless, and appellees have
shown no actual prejudice affecting their substantial rights. Finally, dismissal
of this appeal for failure to timely designate the record, under these circumstances,
would be a classic example of placing form over substance, a procedure historically
criticized and routinely rejected by this Court. See, e.g., Talkington
v. Barnhart, 164 W.Va. 488, 264 S.E.2d 450 (1980).
Holstein, 194 W. Va. at 729 n.2, 461 S.E.2d at 475 n.2.
No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.