State of West Virginia v. Chanze (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 29810 - State of West Virginia v. Chester Chanze FILED Starcher, Justice, concurring: RELEASED July 2, 2002 July 3, 2002 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I concur with the majority opinion and write separately to point out that this defendant was absolutely and constitutionally entitled to one fair jury trial on the charges against him. Because there was a defective record (through no fault of the defendant), no one can say whether the defendant got a fair jury trial. Therefore, we remand the case for a new jury trial. This simple syllogism is neither ludicrous nor lacking in common sense, as claimed by the dissent. If the view of the dissent prevailed, then the constitutional rights of a defendant who asserted error in a magistrate court jury trial would be at the mercy of a tape recorder. Taking what seems to me to be clearly a constitutionally superior approach, the majority opinion creates a situation where a defendant s right to one fair jury trial cannot be overridden by mechanical failure. Accordingly, I concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
