194 W. Va. 1 - State v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2015
10 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 State v. Driver · 162 W. Va. 602 - State v. Frazier · State v. Biddle · State v. Fenney · 129 Ill. App. 3d 99 - People v. Eickhoff
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is true that polygraph test results are not admissible in evidence in a criminal trial in this State. Therefore, error was committed when the witness referred to a polygraph test. Nevertheless, the statement was withdrawn and the jury was instructed to disregard it. Ordinarily where objections to questions or evidence by a party are sustained by the trial court .during the trial and the jury instructed not to consider such matter, it will not constitute reversible error. While there are extraordinary situations where the introduction of evidence is so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard;such evidence will be insufficient and a mistrial should be granted, this case was not one of those extraordinary situations. We, therefore, hold that the trial court was correct in refusing the appellant’s request for a mistrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Particularly suspect is the fact that neither Police Chief Miller, nor State Fire Marshall Investigator Richie, was naive or inexperienced as a witness .such that reference to polygraph testing might have inadvertently been made. In' fact, • the ■ transcript reveals that the polygraph evidence came out during questioning by the State, in answers that were not particularly responsive to the questions which preceded them. It seems highly unlikely that both of these witnesses innocently injected a reference to polygraph testing. In any event, the admission of Mrs. Chambers’ refusal to take a polygraph test was plain error. We hold that reference to an offer or refusal by a defendant to take a polygraph test is inadmissible in criminal trials to the same extent that polygraph results are inadmissible.”
1 later decision 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.