191 W. Va. 87 - State v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 58 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “5. “ ‘In a homicide trial, malice and intent may be inferred by the jury from the defendant’s use of a deadly weapon, under circumstances which the jury does not believe afforded the defendant excuse, justification or provocation for his conduct. Whether premeditation and deliberation may likewise be inferred, depends upon the circumstances of the case.’ Point 2, Syllabus, State v. Bowles, 117 W.Va. 217 [, 185 S.E. 205 (1936)].” Syllabus, State v. Johnson, 142 W.Va. 284 , 95 S.E.2d 409 (1956). 6. It is erroneous in a first degree murder case to instruct the jury that if the defendant killed the deceased with the use of a deadly weapon, then intent, malice, willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation may be inferred from that fact, where there is evidence that the defendant’s actions were based on some legal excuse, justification, or provocation. To the extent that the instruction in State v. Louk, 171 W.Va. 639, 643 , 301 S.E.2d 596, 600 (1983), is contrary to these principles, it is disapproved.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mark T. Coleman v. J.T. Binion · 218 W. Va. 315 - State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Haines

2. “In note 1 of CGM Contractors, Inc. v. Contractors Environmental Services, Inc., 181 W. Va. at 682 , 383 S.E.2d at 864 , we recognized that crimes falling under Rule 609(a)(2)(B) were often called crimen falsi: “Crimen falsi generally refers ‘to crimes in the nature of perjury or subornation of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement, false pretense, or any other offense which involves some element of deceitfulness, untruthfulness, or falsification bearing on a witness’ propensity to testily truthfully.’ Black’s Law Dictionary 335 (5th ed.1979).” Although there has been some disagreement, “federal courts and most state courts are unwilling to conclude that offenses such as petty larceny, shoplifting, robbery, possession of a weapon, and narcotics violations are per se crimes of ‘dishonesty and false statement.’ ” ... In the present case, the defendant failed to show that Mr. Hill’s prior conviction of larceny was based on facts showing deceitfulness or falsification. We, therefore, believe that the trial court correctly refused to allow the defendant to impeach Mr. Hill with his prior conviction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 199 W. Va. 92 - Wilkinson v. Bowser · 199 W. Va. 144 - State v. Rahman

3. “"The Court instructs the jury that to convict one of murder, it is not necessary that malice should exist in the heart of the defendant, Ronnie Wayne Jenkins, against the deceased. If the jury believes from the evidence that the defendant, Ronnie Wayne Jenkins, was guilty of shooting with a deadly weapon, such as a .30 — .30 rifle, the deceased and of killing him, the intent, the malice and the wilfulness, deliberation and premeditation may be inferred from the act, and such malice may not be directed against any particular person, but such acts by Ronnie Wayne Jenkins have shown a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 218 W. Va. 315 - State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Haines · 197 W. Va. 588 - State v. Miller