CHARLESTON, W.Va – The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals will make the final decision in an election fraud case that goes back more than three years.

Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday in the state’s case against Jan Hite King and Kimberly Maynard, two former candidates for the Cabell County Commission accused of conspiring to seek office in a district they did not live in.

Following an investigation by the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office, then-Cabell County Prosecutor Sean Hammers declined to prosecute the case. The case was later referred to former Wayne County Prosecutor Matthew Deerfield, who also elected to not pursue an indictment.

Eventually, the matter came to Mason County Prosecuting Attorney Seth Gaskins, who presented the case to a grand jury, which returned an indictment more than three years after Hite King and Maynard filed to run. Both were charged with one count of false swearing, one count of aiding and abetting the commission of false swearing, and one count of conspiracy to commit false swearing.

Circuit Judge James Young dismissed the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations for misdemeanor offenses had run out after one year.

Before the state supreme court, Deputy Attorney General Andrea Nease argued against that reading of the law, stating that Young made multiple errors in his ruling.

“The judge failed to find West Virginia Code section 3-9-24 should govern as the more specific statute. Second, the judge rendered section 3-9-24 virtually meaningless, and third, the judge’s decision concluded that an unrelated 2002 amendment to 61-11-9 trumped all else,” she said.

Section 3-9 of the West Virginia Code refers specifically to election law and, in subsection 24, states the statute of limitations for election violations is five years. Section 61-11 deals with all crime, and subsection 9 deems the statute of limitations for misdemeanors to be one year.

Attorney Tyler Haslam, representing Hite King, cited the latter as justification for Judge Young’s ruling and referred to a previous decision by the Supreme Court.

“It would appear that our House of Delegates intended for the statute to apply to all misdemeanors, and that’s reflected in this court’s jurisprudence, particularly State v. Leonard, where this very court said that misdemeanors in the state of West Virginia have a one-year statute of limitations,” he said.

During her arguments, Nease described precedent that she believes compels the court to apply the more specific of the two laws. She stated that the nature of election crimes requires a unique statute of limitations.

“Election violations are just different. That’s why there is a five-year statute of limitations. That’s why they have their own statute of limitations. They take time,” she said.

Haslam’s argument countered that assertion with the circumstances of the original prosecution. He stated that the state pushed for quick judgment when the case was first indicted.

“The other thing that’s important to note with the timing of this case and the state’s argument that election crimes are special and require more investigation than other crimes is that the state’s materials, when this started was almost an immediate request for prosecution,” he said.

The state has asked for a writ of prohibition that would stop Judge Young from dismissing the case from circuit court.