Court Opinion

ID: 9896248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 20:14:18.91223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:30.240678
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                              September 2023 Term                           FILED
                                _____________                       November 9, 2023
                                                                         released at 3:00 p.m.
                                  No. 21-0943                        EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                     SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                 _____________                            OF WEST VIRGINIA

                          STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
                           Plaintiff Below, Respondent,

                                        V.

                          TIMOTHY R. MAICHLE,
                         Defendant Below, Petitioner.
             ________________________________________________

                  Appeal from the Circuit Court of Fayette County
                     The Honorable Paul M. Blake, Jr., Judge
                           Criminal Action No. 21-F-130

                        VACATED AND REMANDED
             ________________________________________________

                           Submitted: October 11, 2023
                            Filed: November 9, 2023

Gary A. Collias, Esq.                        Patrick Morrisey, Esq.
Public Defender Services                     Attorney General
Appellate Advocacy Division                  Frankie Dame, Esq.
Charleston, West Virginia                    Assistant Solicitor General
Attorney for the Petitioner                  Andrea Nease Proper, Esq.
                                             Senior Assistant Attorney General
                                             Charleston, West Virginia
                                             Attorneys for the Respondent

JUSTICE BUNN delivered the Opinion of the Court.
                             SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

              1.     “‘Generally, the sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed de novo. An

indictment need only meet minimal constitutional standards, and the sufficiency of an

indictment is determined by practical rather than technical considerations.’ Syllabus Point

2, State v. Miller, 197 W. Va. 588, 476 S.E.2d 535 (1996); Syllabus Point 3, State v.

Wallace, 205 W. Va. 155, 517 S.E.2d 20 (1999).” Syllabus point 1, State v. Legg, 218

W. Va. 519, 625 S.E.2d 281 (2005).

              2.     “The requirements set forth in W. Va. R. Crim. P. 7 were designed to

eliminate technicalities in criminal pleading and are to be construed to secure simplicity in

procedure.” Syllabus point 4, State v. Wallace, 205 W. Va. 155, 517 S.E.2d 20 (1999).

              3.     “An indictment is sufficient under Article III, § 14 of the West

Virginia Constitution and W. Va. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1) if it (1) states the elements of the

offense charged; (2) puts a defendant on fair notice of the charge against which he or she

must defend; and (3) enables a defendant to assert an acquittal or conviction in order to

prevent being placed twice in jeopardy.” Syllabus point 6, State v. Wallace, 205 W. Va.

155, 517 S.E.2d 20 (1999).

                                              i
              4.        “‘“[T]o lawfully charge an accused with a particular crime[,] it is

imperative that the essential elements of that crime be alleged in the indictment.” Syllabus

Point 1, State ex rel. Combs v. Boles, 151 W. Va. 194, 151 S.E.2d 115 (1966).’ Syl. Pt. 4,

State v. Palmer, 210 W. Va. 372, 557 S.E.2d 779 (2001).” Syllabus point 3, in part, State

v. Johnson, 219 W. Va. 697, 639 S.E.2d 789 (2006) (per curiam).

              5.        “‘To support a finding of unlawful wounding under [W. Va. Code

§ 61-2-9], there must be intent to produce a permanent disability or disfiguration.’

[Syllabus point 3,] State v. Taylor, 105 W. Va. 298, [142 S.E. 254 (1928)].” Syllabus point

3, State v. Stalnaker, 138 W. Va. 30, 76 S.E.2d 906 (1953).

              6.        The intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill is an essential element

of the offenses of malicious assault and unlawful assault pursuant to West Virginia Code

§ 61-2-9 (eff. 2017).

              7.        “‘An indictment predicated on a statute which specifically makes

intent an element of the offense sought to be charged must aver the intent.’ Syllabus Point

1, State v. Sprague, 111 W. Va. 132, 161 S.E. 24 (1931).” Syllabus point 1, State v. Parks,

161 W. Va. 511, 243 S.E.2d 848 (1978).

                                                ii
BUNN, Justice:

             This case raises the sufficiency of an indictment for malicious assault,

sometimes referred to as “malicious wounding.” Petitioner, Timothy Maichle, argues that

the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the malicious assault count of an

indictment because it did not reference the intent to “maim, disfigure, disable or kill,”

which he argues is an essential element of the offense. See W. Va. Code § 61-2-9(a) (eff.

2017). The State counters that the circuit court correctly found there are two ways to

commit malicious assault: (1) by maliciously shooting, stabbing, cutting, or wounding any

person; or (2) by any means causing a person bodily injury with the intent to maim,

disfigure, disable, or kill. We find the indictment was insufficient, because it did not

include an essential element of the offense of malicious assault. Therefore, we vacate the

circuit court’s sentencing order and remand this case with instructions to dismiss Mr.

Maichle’s conviction for malicious assault and re-sentence him on the remaining charges.

                                            I.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             Mr. Maichle was charged with the following crimes in a three-count

indictment dated May 11, 2021: Count One, attempted murder; 1 Count Two, malicious

             1
              See W. Va. Code § 61-11-8 (addressing attempts to commit an offense);
W. Va. Code § 61-2-1 (defining the crimes of first- and second-degree murder).

                                            1
assault; 2 and Count Three, third-offense domestic battery. 3 Relevant to this appeal, Count

Two alleged that

              TIMOTHY R. MAICHLE, on or about the 9th day of
              September, 2020, in the said County of Fayette, committed the
              offense of “malicious assault” in that he did unlawfully,
              intentionally, feloniously, and maliciously wound Amanda
              Maichle, by pushing her from a moving motor vehicle, against
              the peace and dignity of the State. W. Va. Code § 61-2-9.

On June 8, 2021, Mr. Maichle filed a motion to dismiss this count of the indictment

claiming it was deficient because the State omitted the required element of “intent to maim,

disfigure, disable, or kill.” See W. Va. Code § 61-2-9(a) (“If any person maliciously shoots,

stabs, cuts or wounds any person, or by any means cause him or her bodily injury with

intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, he or she . . . is guilty of a felony and, upon

conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement in a state correctional facility not less

than two nor more than ten years. . . .”).

              The State responded that a person may commit malicious assault two ways:

(1) by maliciously shooting, stabbing, cutting, or wounding any person; or (2) by any

means causing a person bodily injury with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill.

The circuit court agreed, finding Mr. Maichle was “indicted under the wounding provision

              2
                  See W. Va. Code § 61-2-9(a) (defining malicious and unlawful assault).

              See W. Va. Code § 61-2-28(d) (defining and setting the penalty for third or
              3

subsequent convictions of domestic battery among other provisions).

                                              2
of the statute,” so “‘intent to maim, disfigure, or kill’ need not be set forth in the

indictment.” Thus, the court denied Mr. Maichle’s motion to dismiss by order entered on

July 14, 2021.

              At the beginning of Mr. Maichle’s jury trial, when the court was addressing

preliminary matters, Mr. Maichle renewed his motion to dismiss Count Two of the

indictment and asked the court to reconsider its previous denial of his motion. The court

reaffirmed its original ruling and again denied the motion. Likewise, the circuit court

refused Mr. Maichle’s proposed jury instruction on malicious assault, which included the

element of “intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill,” and, over Mr. Maichle’s objection,

instructed the jury using the State’s malicious assault instruction, which tracked the

language in Count Two of the indictment. W. Va. Code § 61-2-9(a).

              The jury returned a verdict convicting Mr. Maichle of the felony offenses of

attempted second-degree murder, a lesser included offense of attempted first-degree

murder; malicious assault; and third-offense domestic battery. 4 Mr. Maichle filed a motion

              4
                The State filed a recidivist information against Mr. Maichle, and, at his
arraignment, he admitted to his prior felony conviction of third-offense domestic battery.
See W. Va. Code § 61-11-19 (setting out procedure for recidivist proceedings). The circuit
court subsequently imposed sentences of one to three years for Mr. Maichle’s conviction
of attempted second-degree murder (Count One), four to ten years for his conviction of
malicious assault (Count Two), and one to five years with a $2,000 fine for his conviction
of third-offense domestic battery (Count Three). The court doubled the minimum sentence
imposed for Mr. Maichle’s conviction of malicious assault from two to four years due to

                                            3
for a new trial again raising, among other issues, the sufficiency of Count Two of the

indictment. He also raised this issue at his sentencing hearing, to no avail. By final order

entered on October 20, 2021, the circuit court denied Mr. Maichle’s motion for a new trial,

again ruling, in relevant part, that Count Two of the indictment was not defective because

it sufficiently charged Mr. Maichle with malicious assault. The court reasoned that there

are two ways to violate the malicious assault statute, and that Count Two of the indictment

“tracks one way by which the crime of malicious assault can be committed and all of the

essential elements for committing malicious assault are present.” By contrast, the court

found that “[t]he missing language which the Defendant claims renders Count Two

defective tracks the second manner in which the statute can be violated and the crime

committed.” The court concluded that “[a]s the language of Count Two contains all of the

essential elements of one manner of committing the offense of malicious assault, Count

Two is not defective.” This appeal followed.

                                            II.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

              We exercise plenary review when asked to consider the sufficiency of an

indictment.

his recidivist status. See W. Va. Code § 61-11-18 (establishing enhanced sentences for
second or third offense felonies). The court ordered that he serve the sentences
consecutively.

                                             4
                     “Generally, the sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed
              de novo. An indictment need only meet minimal constitutional
              standards, and the sufficiency of an indictment is determined
              by practical rather than technical considerations.” Syllabus
              Point 2, State v. Miller, 197 W. Va. 588, 476 S.E.2d 535
              (1996); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Wallace, 205 W. Va. 155,
              517 S.E.2d 20 (1999).

Syl. pt. 1, State v. Legg, 218 W. Va. 519, 625 S.E.2d 281 (2005). Furthermore, “[t]his

Court’s standard of review concerning a motion to dismiss an indictment is, generally, de

novo.” Syl. pt. 1, in part, State v. Grimes, 226 W. Va. 411, 701 S.E.2d 449 (2009). Finally,

to the extent our resolution of this matter involves statutory construction, “[i]nterpreting a

statute . . . presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review.” Syl. pt. 1, in part,

Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t, 195 W. Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995).

                                              III.

                                        DISCUSSION

              As he repeatedly argued below, Mr. Maichle contends that Count Two of the

indictment is insufficient because it omits an essential element of the crime of malicious

assault: the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill. He tracks the history of the statute to

argue that the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill is an essential element of the offense

of malicious assault. The State likewise reiterates its prior contention, which was adopted

by the circuit court, that there are two ways to commit malicious assault, and the State

simply charged Mr. Maichle using the method that requires the State to prove only that he

maliciously wounded his victim. The State reasons that use of the disjunctive “or” prior to

                                               5
the referenced intent language supports its interpretation of the statute. 5 We agree with Mr.

Maichle and find the circuit court erred by denying his pretrial motion to strike the

malicious assault count of the indictment. 6

              Rule 7 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the

sufficiency of an indictment and requires “a plain, concise and definite written statement

of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” W. Va. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). This

              5
                 During oral argument, the State employed a tactic that has been used in
several recent appeals and asserted, for the first time, new grounds that were not set out in
its appellate brief. See, e.g., Freeland v. Marshall, No. 22-0109, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ n.3,
___ S.E.2d ___, ___ n.3, 2023 WL 6804937, at *2 n.3 (Oct. 16, 2023) (refusing to address
issues raised initially at oral argument); State v. Folse, No. 21-0972, ___ W. Va. ___, ___
n.35, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ n.35, 2023 WL 7320617, at *8 n.35 (Nov. 7, 2023) (same). We
reiterate that our rules of appellate procedure require briefs to list the assignments of error
presented for review and provide an argument addressing the relevant facts and law. See
W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(3) (requiring petitioner’s brief to include a list of assignments of
error); W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(7) (mandating an “argument exhibiting clearly the points
of fact and law presented”); and W. Va. R. App. P. 10(d) (instructing that the respondent’s
brief must conform with Rule 10(c)). Furthermore, “limiting a party to asserting the issues
and arguments in an appeal to those clearly set forth in a party’s brief is important.” Argus
Energy, LLC v. Marenko, ___ W. Va. ___, ___, 887 S.E.2d 223, 228 (2023). This is
“because raising an issue or argument in an appellate brief provides the necessary notice
to both this Court and the opposing party as to what they confront so each can adequately
prepare and discharge their respective responsibilities.” Id. For this reason, the failure to
raise issues or arguments in an appellate brief commonly renders them waived, so
“appellate courts generally do not consider issues or arguments raised for the first time in
oral argument.” Id. at ___, 887 S.E.2d at 228-29 (footnotes omitted). Therefore, we refuse
to consider the State’s arguments raised for the first time at oral argument.
              6
               Mr. Maichle does not challenge Counts One or Three of the indictment or
his convictions of the crimes of attempted second-degree murder and third-offense
domestic battery set out in those counts. This appeal is limited solely to his conviction for
malicious assault.

                                               6
Court has explained that “[t]he requirements set forth in W. Va. R. Crim. P. 7 were

designed to eliminate technicalities in criminal pleading and are to be construed to secure

simplicity in procedure.” Syl. pt. 4, State v. Wallace, 205 W. Va. 155, 517 S.E.2d 20

(1999). Nevertheless, indictments must meet certain requirements, which include stating

the elements of the offense charged:

                      An indictment is sufficient under Article III, § 14 of the
              West Virginia Constitution and W. Va. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1) if it
              (1) states the elements of the offense charged; (2) puts a
              defendant on fair notice of the charge against which he or she
              must defend; and (3) enables a defendant to assert an acquittal
              or conviction in order to prevent being placed twice in
              jeopardy.

Syl. pt. 6, Wallace, 205 W. Va. 155, 517 S.E.2d 20. 7 In other words,

              “‘to lawfully charge an accused with a particular crime[,] it is
              imperative that the essential elements of that crime be alleged
              in the indictment.’ Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Combs v.
              Boles, 151 W. Va. 194, 151 S.E.2d 115 (1966).” Syl. Pt. 4,
              State v. Palmer, 210 W. Va. 372, 557 S.E.2d 779 (2001).

Syl. pt. 3, in part, State v. Johnson, 219 W. Va. 697, 639 S.E.2d 789 (2006) (per curiam).

              7
               See also United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108, 127 S. Ct.
782, 788, 166 L. Ed. 2d 591 (2007) (acknowledging “two constitutional requirements for
an indictment: ‘first, [that it] contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly
informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, [that it]
enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same
offense.’” (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 2907, 41
L. Ed. 2d 590 (1974))).

                                              7
              In assessing the sufficiency of the indictment’s language for the malicious

assault charge against Mr. Maichle, we consider the relevant statutory language, which

provides as follows:

                      (a) If any person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or
              wounds any person, or by any means cause him or her bodily
              injury with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, he or she,
              except where it is otherwise provided, is guilty of a felony and,
              upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement in
              a state correctional facility not less than two nor more than ten
              years. If the act is done unlawfully, but not maliciously, with
              the intent aforesaid, the offender is guilty of a felony and, upon
              conviction thereof, shall either be imprisoned in a state
              correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years,
              or be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months and fined
              not exceeding $500.

W. Va. Code § 61-2-9(a) (emphasis added). Viewing the first sentence of this provision in

isolation, one might easily rely on the word “or” to reach the conclusion advocated by the

State; however, we may not consider only detached language. When we endeavor to give

meaning to a legislative enactment, our main goal is to honor the intent of the Legislature.

See Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361

(1975) (“The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the

intent of the Legislature.”). In analyzing legislative intent, we must consider the statute as

a whole. See Syl. pt. 2, State v. White, 188 W. Va. 534, 425 S.E.2d 210 (1992) (“In

ascertaining legislative intent, effect must be given to each part of the statute and to the

statute as a whole so as to accomplish the general purpose of the legislation.” (quotations

and citations omitted)).

                                              8
              This statute not only sets out the elements of malicious assault, but it also

describes unlawful assault, which is committed when “the act is done unlawfully, but not

maliciously, with the intent aforesaid.” W. Va. Code § 61-2-9(a) (emphasis added). The

phrase “the intent aforesaid” can only refer to the “intent to maim, disfigure, disable or

kill,” as this is the only intent language, other than the explicitly excluded maliciousness,

associated with the act of malicious assault. Id. See also State v. Justin R., No. 12-0406,

2013 WL 1632541, at *2 (W. Va. Apr. 16, 2013) (memorandum decision) (concluding that

“the crime of unlawful assault requires the same element of ‘intent to maim, disfigure,

disable or kill’ that is required for conviction of malicious assault” (quoting W. Va. Code

§ 61-2-9(a))). Because unlawful assault is a lesser included offense of malicious assault, it

may not include an element that is not part of the greater offense. See Syl. pt. 5, State v.

Wright, 200 W. Va. 549, 490 S.E.2d 636 (1997) (“The test of determining whether a

particular offense is a lesser included offense is that the lesser offense must be such that it

is impossible to commit the greater offense without first having committed the lesser

offense. An offense is not a lesser included offense if it requires the inclusion of an element

not required in the greater offense.” (quotations and citations omitted)); State v. Hutton,

235 W. Va. 724, 726-27, 776 S.E.2d 621, 623-24 (2015) (commenting that the defendant

“entered an Alford plea of guilty to the crime of unlawful assault, a lesser-included offense

of malicious assault” (footnote omitted)). 8 By making the “intent to maim, disfigure,

              8
               See also Dent v. Ames, No. 21-0680, 2022 WL 14812566, at *1 (W. Va.
Oct. 26, 2022) (memorandum decision) (relating that defendant pled guilty to “unlawful

                                              9
disable or kill” an element of unlawful assault, the Legislature plainly signaled that such

intent is also a required element of the greater offense of malicious assault. W. Va. Code

§ 61-2-9(a).

               In fact, this Court has long recognized that the intent to maim, disfigure,

disable, or kill is a required element of malicious assault. See State v. Meadows, 18 W. Va.

658 (1881). The Meadows court addressed a statute that defined the offenses of malicious

assault and unlawful assault in terms nearly identical to the modern statute and explained:

               The essence and gist of the statutory offence is the intent with
               which the act may be done. . . . [W]ithout the intent, as laid
               down in the statute, there could be no conviction under the
               statute. The intent mentioned in the statute must be “to maim,
               disfigure, disable or kill,” not any other intent. Under this
               statute proof of intent to rob, to commit a rape, or any other
               offence known to the law except to “maim, disfigure, disable
               or kill,” would not satisfy the terms of the statute. If an act is
               made criminal by statute, only when done with a particular
               intent, this intent must be averred and proved according to the
               terms of the statute.

assault as a lesser included offense of malicious assault”); State v. Edler, No. 21-0248,
2022 WL 1693754, at *1 (W. Va. May 26, 2022) (memorandum decision) (same); State v.
Valentine, No. 19-1158, 2021 WL 2556851, at *1 (W. Va. June 22, 2021) (memorandum
decision) (same); State v. Linkous, No. 19-1073, 2021 WL 983049, at *1 (W. Va. Mar. 16,
2021) (memorandum decision) (stating that defendant was convicted by a jury of “unlawful
assault as a lesser included offense of malicious assault”); State v. Allen, No. 19-0315, 2020
WL 3407764, at *2 (W. Va. June 18, 2020) (memorandum decision) (same).

                                              10
Id. at 668-69 (emphasis added). 9 Notably, in Meadows, the Court rejected a jury instruction

that would have allowed the defendant to be convicted if the jury found that he “maliciously

shot” the victim with intent to “to cause him bodily injury,” which is practically

indistinguishable from the State’s theory that Mr. Maichle was properly indicted and

convicted for maliciously wounding his victim. 10 Id. at 668. Similarly, the Court has

              9
               The Meadows Court appears to have been discussing the version of the
malicious and unlawful assault statute in effect in 1878-79, which stated:

                     If any person maliciously shoot, stab, cut or wound any
              person, or by any means cause him bodily injury, with intent
              to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, he shall, except where it is
              otherwise provided, be punished by confinement in the
              penitentiary not less than two nor more than ten years. If such
              act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, with the intent
              aforesaid, the offender shall, at the discretion of the jury, either
              be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than
              five years, or be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months,
              and fined not exceeding five hundred dollars.

I Kelly’s W. Va. Statutes, Chap. 40 (Ch. 144 of Code), § 9, at 388 (Rev. 1878-79).
              10
                    The State argues that State v. Daniel, 144 W. Va. 551, 109 S.E.2d 32
(1959), supports its position that there are two ways to commit malicious assault by stating
that the indictment in that case “charges both wounding and bodily injury caused by a blow
of the fist.” Id. at 554, 109 S.E.2d at 34. However, Daniel does not stand for that proposition
because it addressed a disparity between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial,
not the sufficiency of the indictment or the essential elements of malicious assault. To the
extent that Daniel may be read as indicating that there are two ways to commit malicious
assault, that language is mere dicta and not binding authority. See Rogers v. Albert, 208
W. Va. 473, 477 n.9, 541 S.E.2d 563, 567 n.9 (2000) (per curiam) (observing that dicta
“clearly has no stare decisis or binding effect upon this Court”); In re Kanawha Valley
Bank, 144 W. Va. 346, 382-83, 109 S.E.2d 649, 669 (1959) (commenting that “[o]biter
dicta or strong expressions in an opinion, where such language was not necessary to a
decision of the case, will not establish a precedent”).

                                              11
deduced that “[t]he true purpose and meaning” for creating the statutory offenses of

malicious and unlawful assault “was doubtless conceived to be to define and punish as

felonies those acts which [had] theretofore been considered misdemeanors only in those

cases where it also appeared that there was the felonious intent to maim, disfigure, disable

or kill.” McComas v. Warth, 113 W. Va. 163, 164-65, 167 S.E. 96, 97 (1932) (emphasis

added).

              Further confirmation that the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill is an

essential element of malicious assault is reflected in the fact that we have determined that

the requisite intent includes the intent to produce a permanent disability or disfiguration:

“‘To support a finding of unlawful wounding under [W. Va. Code § 61-2-9], there must be

intent to produce a permanent disability or disfiguration.’ [Syl. pt. 3,] State v. Taylor, 105

W. Va. 298, [142 S.E. 254 (1928)].” Syl. pt. 3, State v. Stalnaker, 138 W. Va. 30, 76 S.E.2d

906 (1953) (emphasis added). See also id. at 41, 76 S.E.2d at 912 (commenting that “the

intent to produce a permanent disability or disfiguration is an essence of the crimes of

malicious wounding and unlawful wounding,” and citing cases); State v. Combs, 166

W. Va. 149, 151, 280 S.E.2d 809, 810 (1980) (per curiam) (stating that “[t]he statute makes

it clear, as does the case law in this State, that intent is an essential element of both

malicious wounding and unlawful wounding,” and quoting Syllabus point 3 of Stalnaker).

Because the State must show the intent to inflict a permanent disability or disfiguration,

we have found evidence of the extent of an injury to be admissible: “Under our malicious

                                             12
wounding statute, W. Va. Code [§] 61-2-9, evidence of the extent of an injury is admissible

since under the statute the State must show that the defendant inflicted the injury with an

intent to produce a permanent disability or disfiguration.” Syl. pt. 5, State v. Scotchel, 168

W. Va. 545, 285 S.E.2d 384 (1981). Accord State v. Holpp, No. 14-0758, 2015 WL

1740293, at *3 (W. Va. Apr. 13, 2015) (memorandum decision).

              Based upon these longstanding authorities, we now hold that, the intent to

maim, disfigure, disable, or kill is an essential element of the offenses of malicious assault

and unlawful assault pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-2-9 (eff. 2017). The indictment

in this case failed to include the essential element of an intent to maim, disfigure, disable,

or kill; therefore, the indictment was insufficient.

              The State argues that the indictment was cured according to the statute of

jeofailes, which provides that “[j]udgment in any criminal case, after a verdict, shall not be

arrested or reversed upon any exception to the indictment or other accusation, if the offense

be charged therein with sufficient certainty for judgment to be given thereon, according to

the very right of the case.” W. Va. Code § 62-2-11. In other words, “[o]ur statute of

jeofailes . . . cures any technical defect in an indictment when the indictment sufficiently

apprises the accused of the charge which he must face.” State v. Casdorph, 159 W. Va.

909, 912, 230 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1976) (emphasis added), abrogated on other grounds by

                                              13
State v. Persinger, 169 W. Va. 121, 286 S.E.2d 261 (1982). 11 In his reply brief, Mr.

Maichle points to the erroneous jury instruction, given over his objection, which also

omitted the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill from the crime of malicious assault.

He contends that the indictment error contaminated the trial itself, to his prejudice. We

agree. “[T]he statute of jeofailes . . . will not cure substantial defects in an indictment.”

State v. Parks, 161 W. Va. 511, 513, 243 S.E.2d 848, 850 (1978) (emphasis added) (finding

indictment void because it failed to allege the statutory element of intent). Furthermore,

“‘[a]n indictment predicated on a statute which specifically makes intent an element of the

offense sought to be charged must aver the intent.’ Syllabus Point 1, State v. Sprague, 111

W. Va. 132, 161 S.E. 24 (1931).” Syl. pt. 1, Parks, 161 W. Va. 511, 243 S.E.2d 848

               11
                  In its discussion of the statute of jeofailes, the State relies primarily on the
opinion in State v. Chic-Colbert, 231 W. Va. 749, 749 S.E.2d 642 (2013) (per curiam).
Chic-Colbert is distinguishable from the instant matter on numerous grounds. First, unlike
Mr. Maichle, the Chic-Colbert defendant failed to timely object to the sufficiency of the
indictment, prompting the Court to apply West Virginia Rule of Criminal Procedure
12(b)(2), which requires a defendant to raise any objection to an indictment prior to trial,
and construe the indictment in favor of validity. See Chic-Colbert, 231 W. Va. at 758, 749
S.E.2d at 651. Interpreting the indictment in favor of validity, the Court found the defect,
an error in the statutory citation, was merely a typographical error. Id. See also Syl. pt. 1,
in part, State v. Rudy, 98 W. Va. 444, 127 S.E. 190 (1925) (“[T]ypographical errors are not
fatal to an indictment, where they do not affect the sense, and the meaning of such words
can be determined with certainty by a person of ordinary intelligence.”). The Chic-Colbert
Court concluded that the indictment substantially followed the language of the statute and
correctly charged the defendant with the offense the State intended to charge. Here, the
defendant timely and repeatedly objected. Furthermore, the indictment did not suffer from
a mere typographical error; rather, it omitted a requisite intent, and contained no language
from which that intent could be inferred. Finally, the error was perpetuated at trial by a
similarly flawed jury instruction on the crime of malicious assault that also omitted the
essential element of intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill.

                                               14
(emphasis added). 12 Here, the indictment did not include an essential intent element of

malicious assault, and the jury was likewise improperly instructed by the same omission.

Therefore, the substantial defect in the indictment was not cured by the statute of

jeofailes. 13

                Accordingly, we find the circuit court erred by denying Mr. Maichle’s

motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment, which failed to include an essential intent

element of malicious assault.

                 See also State v. Johnson, 219 W. Va. 697, 639 S.E.2d 789 (2006) (per
                12

curiam) (finding error where indictment failed to substantially follow the language of the
first degree robbery statute); Syl. pt. 3, in part, State ex rel. Cain v. Skeen, 137 W. Va. 806,
74 S.E.2d 413 (1953) (“An indictment which does not allege every material element of the
offense sought to be charged is defective and void . . . .”).

                 We also summarily reject the State’s skeletal argument that the defective
                13

indictment is harmless error. The State’s brief on this issue, made up of a string cite of
federal cases with no analysis of their application and a short, conclusory argument that
Mr. Maichle was not deprived of any constitutional rights, is inadequate for appellate
review. “When the alleged error involves the infringement of a petitioner’s constitutional
rights, the burden in a harmless error analysis is on the State to show that the error is
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Greer, No. 13-1259, 2014 WL 6607465, at
*2 (W. Va. Nov. 21, 2014) (memorandum decision). The State has failed to meet this
burden. We have counseled that “[a] skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing more than an
assertion, does not preserve a claim ” State v. Kaufman, 227 W. Va. 537, 555 n.39, 711
S.E.2d 607, 625 n.39 (2011) (citation omitted). See also Tiernan v. Charleston Area Med.
Ctr., Inc., 203 W. Va. 135, 140 n.10, 506 S.E.2d 578, 583 n.10 (1998) (“Issues . . . merely
mentioned in passing are deemed waived.”).

                                              15
                                          IV.

                                   CONCLUSION

             For the reasons explained above, we vacate the circuit court’s sentencing

order and remand this case with instructions to dismiss Mr. Maichle’s conviction for

malicious assault and re-sentence him on the remaining charges.

                                                                  Vacated and Remanded.

                                          16