173 W. Va. 123 - State v. Cheshire’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]here a person of less than normal intelligence does not have the capacity to understand the meaning and effect of his confession, and such lack of capacity is shown by evidence at the suppression hearing, it is error for the trial judge not to suppress the confession. However, where the defendant's lower than normal intelligence is not shown clearly to be such as would impair his capacity to understand the meaning and effect of his confession, said lower than normal intelligence is but one factor to be considered by the trial judge in weighing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the challenged confession.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 181 W. Va. 131 - State v. Parsons · 175 W. Va. 185 - State v. Cook

2. ““A trial court’s decision regarding the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence.” Syl. pt. 3, State v. Vance, 162 W.Va. 467 , 250 S.E.2d 146 (1978). See also syl. pt. 4, State v. Cheshire, 173 W.Va. 123 , 313 S.E.2d 61 (1984).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hardway · 175 W. Va. 185 - State v. Cook

3. “The evidence as discussed previously does not clearly show a lack of capacity to understand the meaning and effect of her confession. Cheshire was twenty-five years old at the time she confessed and had recent experience with the criminal justice system. She had been advised of her constitutional rights, including her right to counsel and her right to remain silent, in connection with her guilty pleas. Despite subnormal intelligence, the testimony indicates that she had learned from prior experiences. It may have been unwise for her to confess or even foolish, but that will not render an otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 174 W. Va. 573 - State v. Nicholson