179 W. Va. 24 - State v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 182 W. Va. 345 - State v. Fortner (1989), 200 W. Va. 637 - State v. Wade (1997)
39 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 Nye & Nissen v. United States · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Peoni · Laverick v. United States · 161 W. Va. 517 - State v. Starkey
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In certain circumstances evidence of the flight of the defendant will be admissible in a criminal trial as evidence of the defendant’s guilty conscience or knowledge. Prior to admitting such evidence, however, the trial judge, upon request by either the State or the defendant, should hold an in camera hearing to determine whether the probative value of such evidence outweighs its possible prejudicial effect.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘Lying in wait’ as a legal concept has both mental and physical elements. The mental element is the purpose or intent to kill or inflict bodily harm upon someone; the physical elements consist of waiting, watching and secrecy or concealment. In order to sustain a conviction for first degree murder by lying in wait pursuant to W.Va.Code, 61-2-1 [1987], the prosecution must prove that the accused was waiting and watching with concealment or secrecy for the purpose of or with the intent to kill or inflict bodily harm upon a person. 6”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well established that in order for a defendant to be convicted as an aider and abettor, and thus a principal in the second degree, the prosecution must demonstrate that he or she shared the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree, [citations omitted] Of course we also recognize that the defendant is not required to possess the identical intent as the principal in the first degree.”
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.