IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
State of West Virginia ex rel. Stanley M. Meyers, Petitioner
vs.) No. 35473
Honorable Gina Groh, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley
On a former day, to wit, January 28, 2010, this Court entered a rule to show
cause returnable on April 21, 2010, as to why a writ of prohibition should not be directed
against the respondent, the Honorable Gina Groh, Judge of the Circuit Court of Berkeley
County, as requested in the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by the petitioner, Stanley
M. Meyers, on December 17, 2009. Having thoroughly considered the matter raised in the
petition, the response thereto, and the oral arguments of counsel, this Court hereby denies the
writ and remands this case to the circuit court for additional proceedings including a hearing
pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.
The petitioner was previously convicted of three counts of first degree sexual
abuse and one count of third degree sexual assault. The victims were four male children
ranging in age from six to twelve years old at the time the offenses were committed. Prior
to his sentencing, the petitioner underwent a pre-sentence evaluation pursuant to W. Va.
Code § 62-12-7a (1994) (Repl. Vol. 2005). The petitioner discharged his sentences on June
13, 2006. He registered as a sex offender with the State Police the next day.
On May 20, 2009, the petitioner was indicted on one felony count of failure
to register as a sex offender and one misdemeanor count of contributing to the delinquency
of a minor. The charges arose out of the petitioner's alleged efforts to cultivate a relationship
with another young boy and his creation of an e-mail account which he did not inform the
State Police about as required by the Sex Offender Registration Act, W.Va. Code § 15-12-3
(2006) (Repl. Vol. 2009).
On August 18, 2009, the petitioner filed a motion to suppress seeking to
prevent the State from using the pre-sentence evaluation report completed in connection with
his prior convictions at his upcoming trial. By order dated December 2, 2009, the respondent
denied the petitioner's motion, finding that the State may present information in the report
through expert testimony. The respondent indicated, however, that she would consider the
use of the report again when ruling upon the admissibility of evidence that the State seeks
to introduce at the petitioner's trial pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of
Evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his petition for a writ of prohibition with this
Upon review of the December 2, 2009, circuit court order, it is clear that the
respondent has only partially ruled upon the admissibility of the pre-sentence evaluation
report as she has indicated that she will consider whether the State can use the report at the
petitioner's trial during the hearing on the State's 404(b) evidence. Absent a ruling on the
merits by respondent, this Court declines to resolve this issue. It would be premature on our
part to prohibit the circuit court from doing that which it has yet to rule upon. State ex rel.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kaufman, 222 W. Va. 37, 45, 658 S.E.2d 728, 736 (2008).
Accordingly, the writ is denied, and this case is remanded to the circuit court for further
proceedings including a hearing pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of
The mandate of this Court shall issue contemporaneously herewith.