151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 143 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The first assignment of error we will take up is that dealing with the motion for a change of venue. The affidavits and newspaper articles filed with said motion do not indicate that the publicity given to this case was inflammatory or that it would tend to influence the jury in its determinations against returning a fair and just verdict. The burden is on the defendant to prove the need for a change of venue and the existence of prejudice at the time of the trial. The granting of such motion rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Powers, 91 W. Va. 737 , 113 S.E. 912 ; State v. Wooldridge, 129 W.Va. 448 , 40 S.E.2d 899 ; State v. Pietranton, 140 W.Va. 444 , 84 S.E.2d 774 ; State v. Loveless, 140 W.Va. 875 , 87 S.E.2d 273 . Point 2 of the syllabus in the Wooldridge case clearly states the law with respect to change of venue in the following language: `To warrant a change of venue in a criminal case, there must be a showing of good cause therefor, the burden of which rests upon defendant, the only person who, in any such case, is entitled to a change of venue. The good cause aforesaid must exist at the time application for a change of venue is made. Whether, on the showing made, a change of venue will be ordered, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it clearly appears that the discretion aforesaid has been abused.' The mere existence of widespread publicity is not, in and of itself, sufficien”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 W. Va. 547 - State v. Dandy · 161 W. Va. 530 - State v. Pratt

2. ““ ‘A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it before the verdict. (3) Such evidence must be new and material, and not merely cumulative; and cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same kind to the same point. (4) The evidence must be such as ought to produce an opposite result at a second trial on the merits. (5) And the new trial will generally be refused when the sole object of the new evidence is to discredit or impeach a witness on the opposite side.’ Syllabus Point 1, Halstead v. Horton, 38 W.Va. 727 , 18 S.E. 953 (1894).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 W. Va. 447 - State v. Catlett · 171 W. Va. 320 - State v. Sparks

3. ““A new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence or newly discovered evidence is very seldom granted and the circumstances must be unusual or special.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 W. Va. 701 - State v. Nicholson · SER Scott R. Smith, Prosecuting Attorney v. Hon. David J. Sims, Judge