183 W. Va. 1 - State v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 183 W. Va. 641 - State v. Edward Charles L. (1990), 194 W. Va. 569 - State v. Phillips (1995)
62 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 167 W. Va. 252 - State v. Payne · 178 W. Va. 104 - State v. Smith · 159 W. Va. 664 - State v. Cokeley · 172 W. Va. 247 - State v. Meadows · 117 W. Va. 241 - State v. Corbin
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, out-of-court statements made by someone other than the declarant while testifying are not admissible unless: 1) the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but for some other purpose such as motive, intent, state-of-mind, identification or reasonableness of the party’s action; 2) the statement is not hearsay under the rules; or 3) the statement is hearsay but falls within an exception provided for in the rules.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“" ' 'Where improper evidence of a nonconsti-tutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial, the test to determine if the error is harmless is: (1) the inadmissible evidence must be removed from the State's case and a determination made as to whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to convince impartial minds of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) if the remaining evidence is found to be insufficient, the error is not harmless; (3) if the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, an analysis must then be made to determine whether the error had any prejudicial effect on the jury.' Syllabus Point 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980)’; Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Maynard, 183 W.Va. 1 , 393 S.E.2d 221 (1990) (quoting Syl. Pt. 6, State v. Smith, 178 W.Va. 104 , 358 S.E.2d 188 (1987)).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[g]enerally, out-of-court statements made by someone other than the declarant while testifying are not admissible unless: 1) the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but for some other purpose such as motive, intent, state-of-mind, identification or reasonableness of the party's action....”
4 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.