167 W. Va. 16 - State v. Compton’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2010
17 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 157 W. Va. 640 - State v. Thomas · 163 W. Va. 502 - State v. Atkins · 155 W. Va. 562 - State v. Bowman · 165 W. Va. 164 - State v. Haverty · 162 W. Va. 815 - State v. Adkins
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘An appellant or plaintiff in error will not be permitted to complain of error in the admission of evidence which he offered or elicited, and this is true even of a defendant in a criminal case” Syl. pt. 2, State v. Bowman, 155 W.Va. 562 , 184 S.E.2d 314 (1971).” 5”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We cannot conclude, under the particular facts of this ease, that the court abused its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial on the basis of William Fox’s testimony. The answer was given by a defense witness and was not directly responsive to the prosecutor’s question and even after the answer was given, the State did not pursue a line of questioning in connection with why the defendant was spending his weekends in jail. Also, the answer was in such general terms that, in itself, it did not convey what type of crime the defendant had been convicted of, if any. Furthermore, the State made no attempt to place any emphasis on the witness’ answer and no mention of it was made in the State’s closing argument. Even if we were to find that the court had abused its discretion in allowing the answer, its admission would be harmless error under the standard this Court formulated in Syl. pt. 2 of State v. Atkins, [ 163 W.Va. 502 ], 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Subject to exceptions, it is a well-established common-law rule that in a criminal prosecution, proof which shows or tends to show that the accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes and offenses at other times, even though they are of the same nature as the one charged, is incompetent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing the commission of the particular crime charged, unless such other offenses are an element of or are legally connected with the offense for which the accused is on trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.