166 W. Va. 309 - State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably 183 W. Va. 641 - State v. Edward Charles L. (1990), 185 W. Va. 422 - State v. Julius (1991)
51 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ethridge v. United States · 128 W. Va. 299 - Yuncke v. Welker · Beck v. Dye · State v. Driver · 151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An alleged spontaneous declaration must be evaluated in light of the following factors: (1) The statement or declaration made must relate to the main event and must explain, elucidate, or in some way characterize that event; (2) it must be a natural declaration or statement growing out of the event, and not a mere narrative of a past, completed affair; (3) it must be a statement of fact and not the mere expression of an opinion; (4) it must be a spontaneous or instinctive utterance of thought, dominated or evoked by the transaction or occurrence itself, and not the product of premeditation, reflection, or design; (5) while the declaration or statement need not be coincident or contemporaneous with the occurrence of the event, it must be made at such time and under such circumstances as will exclude the presumption that it is the result of deliberation; and (6) it must appear that the declaration or statement was made by one who either participated in the transaction or witnessed the act or fact concerning which the declaration or statement was made.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“" ‘ “In a criminal case where the State confesses error, urges that the judgment be reversed and that the defendant be granted a new trial, this Court, upon ascertaining that the errors confessed are reversible errors and do in fact constitute cause for the reversal of the judgment of conviction, will reverse the judgment and grant the defendant a new trial." Syl. State v. Goff, [ 159 W.Va. 348 ], 221 S.E.2d 891 (1976); State v. Cokeley, [ 159 W.Va. 664 ], 226 S.E.2d 40 (1976).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“‘[a]s a general rule, an expressed intent of an accused to kill a certain person is not pertinent on his trial for killing another, but it may become pertinent and admissible under circumstances showing a eonnection between the threat and subsequent conduct of the accused_’ Syl. Pt. 2 (in part), State v. Corey, 114 W.Va. 118 , 171 S.E. 114 (1933).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.