171 W. Va. 479 - State v. Foster’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2018
11 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 Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · 162 W. Va. 41 - State v. Ellsworth Wayne · Snyder v. Coiner · 142 W. Va. 284 - State v. Johnson · 165 W. Va. 253 - State v. Fellers
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A criminal defendant has a broad right to impeach prosecution witnesses on cross-examination with prior inconsistent statements. See State v. Fellers, 165 W.Va. 253 , 267 S.E.2d 738 (1980); State v. Wayne, 162 W.Va. 41 , 245 S.E.2d 838 (1978); State v. Johnson, 142 W.Va. 284 , 95 S.E.2d 409 (1956). While the scope of cross-examination is generally within the discretion of the trial court and usually limited to matters brought out on direct, U.S. v. Simpkins, 505 F.2d 562 (4th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946 , 95 S.Ct. 1327 , 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975), the trial court may not control the scope of cross-examination so far as to prejudice the defendant. Furthermore, we are advised that “cross-examination to impeach is not, in general, limited to matters brought out on the direct examination.” McCormick on Evidence, supra, at 49. The right to an effective cross-examination is an integral part of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Snyder v. Coiner, 510 F.2d 224 (4th Cir.1975), and this right does not yield to a Rhadamanthine application of court rules governing order of proof.”
2 later decisions 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.