191 W. Va. 79 - State v. Mayo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The plain error doctrine contained in Rule 30 and Rule 52(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure is identical. It enables this Court to take notice of error, including instructional error occurring during the proceedings, even though such error was not brought to the attention of the trial court. However, the doctrine is to be used sparingly and only in those circumstances .where substantial rights are affected, or the truth-finding process is substantially impaired, or a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 220 W. Va. 246 - State v. Thompson · 215 W. Va. 499 - State v. Rogers

2. ““ ‘ “Merely witnessing a crime, without intervention, does not make a person a party to its commission unless his interference was a duty, and his non-interference was one of the conditions of the commission of the crime; or unless his non-interference was designed by him and operated as an encouragement to or protection of the perpetrator.” Syllabus, State v. Patterson, 109 W.Va. 588 , [ 155 S.E. 661 ] [1930].’ Syllabus Point 3, State v. Haines, 156 W.Va. 281 , 192 S.E.2d 879 (1972).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 200 W. Va. 637 - State v. Wade · State v. Deem

3. “‘[t]o be convicted as an aider and abettor, the law requires that the accused “in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” United States v. Peoni 100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d Cir.1938), quoted with approval in Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619 , 69 S.Ct. 766, 770 , 93 L.Ed. 919 , 925 (1949), and State v. Harper, [179] W.Va. [24], [28], 365 S.E.2d 69, 73 (1987). The State must demonstrate that the defendant “shared the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree.” State v. Harper, [179] W.Va. at [29], 365 S.E.2d at 74 . (Citations omitted). In this regard, the accused is not required to have intended the particular crime committed by the perpetrator, but only to have knowingly intended to assist, encourage, or facilitate the design of the criminal actor. The intent requirement is relaxed somewhat where the defendant’s physical participation in the criminal undertaking is substantial.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Deem