156 W. Va. 509 - State v. Durham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘It is equally well settled that the consequences of an act which is the efficient cause of the death of another are not excused, nor is the criminal responsibility for causing death lessened, by the pre-existing physical condition of the person killed ... which rendered him unable to withstand the shock of the wound inflicted, and without which predisposed condition the blow would not have been fatal ...’ 40 Am.Jur.2d, Homicide, Section 20, page 313. It is immaterial that the accused did not know that the deceased was in a feeble condition which facilitated the killing. ‘Responsibility for homicide attaches to one who accelerates the death of a person in poor physical condition ...’ 40 C.J.S. Homicide, Section 11(d), page 855. See also 40 Am.Jur.2d, Homicide, Sections 15-16, pages 306-07. It is also clear that foreseeability is not an element in the corpus delicti. Causation, as we consider it here, is not the type of causation involved in tort liability. It is not necessary that the defendant could have reasonably anticipated that her act would cause death. 40 C.J.S. Homicide, Section 11(d), page 856. As can be gleaned from this discussion, the great weight of authority in this country holds a defendant criminally responsible where he inflicts a wound resulting in death, even though the cause of death is related to the proper treatment of the wound or such treatment or effect of a preexisting physical disability of the victim. We hold this to be the law of this State govern”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Julia Surbaugh · 229 W. Va. 415 - State v. Jenkins

2. “The law in practically every American jurisdiction, including West Virginia, is that the corpus delicti in eases of felonious homicide consists of two basic elements: (1) Death of the victim; and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as a cause thereof. 40 C.J.S. Homicide Section 186, pages 1086-1087; 40 Am.Jur.2d, Homicide, Section 4, page 297; State v. Craig, 131 W.Va. 714 , 51 S.E.2d 283 [(1948)]; State v. Koontz, 117 W.Va. 35 , 183 S.E. 680 [ (1936) ]; State v. Beale, 104 W.Va. 617 , pt. 6 syl., 141 S.E. 401 [ (1927) ]. Most of the eases decided in West Virginia concerning the proof of the corpus delicti relate to establishing the death of the victim or to the existence of a criminal agency. State v. Craig, 131 W.Va. 714 , 51 S.E.2d 283 ; State v. Koontz, 117 W.Va. 35 , 183 S.E. 680 ; State v. Lucas, 103 W.Va. 743 , 138 S.E. 393 [ (1927) ]; State v. Gilfillen, 96 W.Va. 660 , 123 S.E. 578 [ (1924) ]; State v. Roush, 95 W.Va. 132 , 120 S.E. 304 [ (1923) ]; State v. Merrill, 72 W.Va. 500 , 78 S.E. 699 [ (1913) ]; State v. Flanagan, 26 W.Va. 116 [ (1885) ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 229 W. Va. 415 - State v. Jenkins

3. “One who inflicts a blow or wound upon another, which devolves into or initiates an affliction or disease, is criminally responsible for the death of such person ultimately resulting from the affliction or disease. It is not indispensable to a conviction that the wounds be necessarily fatal and the direct cause of death. It is sufficient that they cause death indi rectly through a chain of natural effects and causes unchanged by human action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 Va. App. 385 - Spain v. Commonwealth