194 W. Va. 221 - State v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 219 W. Va. 366 - State v. Mechling (2006), 194 W. Va. 569 - State v. Phillips (1995)
37 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 Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Ohio v. Roberts · United States v. Frady · Pointer v. Texas
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Using the broad definition of `statement' articulated in Rule 801(a)(1)'an oral or written assertion'as a point of departure, Williamson went on to explain the significance of the term for purposes of Rule 804(b)(3). Williamson , ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2434 , 129 L.Ed.2d at 482 . Specifically, the Supreme Court concluded that the word `statement' means `"a single declaration or remark,"` rather than `"a report or narrative,"` reasoning that this `narrower reading' is consistent with the principles underlying the rule. ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2434-35 , 129 L.Ed.2d at 482 , quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2229, defn. 2(a) and (b) (1961). Thus, when ruling upon the admission of a narrative under this rule, a trial court must break down the narrative and determine the separate admissibility of each `"single declaration or remark."` This exercise is a `fact-intensive inquiry' that requires `careful examination of all the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity involved[.]' ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2437 , 129 L.Ed.2d at 486 ."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“To satisfy the admissibility requirements under Rule 804(b)(3) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, a trial court must determine: (a) The existence of each separate statement in the narrative; (b) whether each statement was against the penal interest of the declarant; (c) whether corroborating circumstances exist indicating the trustworthiness of the statement; and (d) whether the declarant is unavailable.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The two central requirements for admission of extrajudicial testimony under the Confrontation Clause contained in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution are: (1) demonstrating the unavailability of the witness to testify; and (2) proving the reliability of the witness’s out-of-court statement.”
4 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.