188 W. Va. 661 - State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e fail to see how he [the defendant] was harmed by the State’s election to charge him only with felony murder. He defended both the arson charge and the premeditated murder charge, with an alibi defense. Although Mr. Walker could have been prejudiced had he chosen to make a self-defense claim (or some other justifiable homicide defense where he would have had to admit the killing), Mr. Walker was not deprived of the opportunity to raise any defenses nor was he tricked into admitting something as a defense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 218 W. Va. 519 - State v. Legg · 202 W. Va. 498 - Stuckey v. Trent

2. “"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in con-formily therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident[.]””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Horton · 197 W. Va. 713 - State v. Phelps

3. “The language of Rule 804(b)(5) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and its counterpart in Rule 803(24) requires that five general factors must be met in order for hearsay evidence to be admissible under the rules. First and most important is the trustworthiness of the statement, which must be equivalent to the trustworthiness underlying the specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. Second, the statement must be offered to prove a material fact. Third, the statement must be shown to be more probative on the issue for which it is offered than any other evidence the proponent can reasonably procure. Fourth, admission of the statment [sic] must comport with the general purpose of the rules of evidence and the interest of justice. Fifth, adequate notice of the statement must be afforded the other party to provide that party a fair opportunity to meet the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hamilton v. Ravasio