186 W. Va. 507 - State v. Hatfield’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2019
14 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 Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc. · State v. Amaya-Ruiz · 165 W. Va. 572 - State v. Demastus
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a fundamental guaranty of due process that a defendant cannot be tried or convicted for a crime while he or she is mentally incompetent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Court: The [Supreme Court] directs me to ask the defendant first, to acknowledge on the record that he understands his counsel’s statements. So I will ask you now, Mr. Hatfield, sir, do you think you are competent today? Mr. Hatfield: Yes, sir, I feel competent today, your Honor. Court: Okay. Mr. Hatfield, then, in view of that, I would like to ask you, sir, if you can acknowledge on the record that you understand what [trial counsel] Mr. Chafin just now said. He was your counsel at the time. Mr. Hatfield: Yes, I understand what Mr. Chafin said, your Honor. Court: Then, based on that, based on what your lawyer has said, and your acknowledgment that you understand it, do you still desire to plead guilty? Mr. Hatfield: No. Court: Do you want to withdraw this plea and stand a jury trial? Mr. Hatfield: Yes, I do, your Honor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[o]ur review of the record in this case indicates that the inquiry of the [defendant] by the circuit court, under the circumstances of most cases, would be adequate to satisfy the requirements to ensure protection of a defendant’s constitutional rights. However, in this case, there is an overlay to the proceedings in the circuit court which, if not explored further by that court, may result in severe prejudice to the [defendant]. This involves: (1) the second suicide attempt by the [defendant]; and (2) the [defendant’s] plea of guilty against the advice of counsel.”
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.