Whether the West Virginia Supreme Court's definition of violence has rendered the West Virginia competency law impermissibly vague in violation of due-process

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Izzac Weister was criminally charged with sexual offenses as a result of electronic messages that he sent to his half sister. The trial court found Mr. Weister not competent to stand trial because Mr. Weister was cognitively impaired as the result of a brain injury. Under West Virginia law, the consequences of being found not competent differ based upon whether a charged offense may be characterized as violent. The West Virginia Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling that Mr. Weister’s offenses “involved acts of violence against a person,” resulting in Mr. Weister’s indefinite custody in a psychiatric facility. The question presented is whether the West Virginia Supreme Court’s convoluted definition of violence has rendered the West Virginia competency law impermissibly vague in violation of Mr. Weister’s due process rights.