172 W. Va. 640 - State v. Ashcraft’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably 192 W. Va. 165 - State v. Derr (1994), 197 W. Va. 588 - State v. Miller (1996)
65 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · 169 W. Va. 191 - State v. Hatfield · 158 W. Va. 905 - State v. Starr · 151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric · 141 W. Va. 55 - State v. Huffman
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The action of a trial court in admitting or excluding evidence in the exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless it appears that such action amounts to an abuse of discretion.’ Syllabus Point 10, State v. Huffman, 141 W.Va. 55 , 87 S.E.2d 541 (1955).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The right to a trial by an impartial, objective jury in a criminal case is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 14, of the West Virginia Constitution. A meaningful and effective voir dire of the jury panel is necessary to effectuate that fundamental right.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court may ... properly limit the extent of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors to inquiries related to their qualifications. State v. Pratt, [ 161 W.Va. 530 , 244 S.E.2d 227 (1978)]; State v. Wilson, 157 W.Va. 1036 , 207 S.E.2d 174 (1974); Henthorn v. Long, 146 W.Va. 636 , 122 S.E.2d 186 (1961); Carpenter v. Hyman, [ 67 W.Va. 4 , 66 S.E. 1978 (1910)]. The trial court’s exercise of discretion in determining the extent of inquiry- on voir dire is not normally subject to review on appeal. However, the court’s discretion is limited by the requirements of due process, and may be reviewed in a case of abuse. See United States v. Magana-Arevalo, 639 F.2d 226 (5th Cir.1981). See also State v. Pratt, supra; State v. Beacraft, 126 W.Va. 895 , 30 S.E.2d 541 (1944).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wood
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.