206 W. Va. 295 - State v. Rygh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The principal statutory provision regarding the confidentiality of juvenile law enforcement records is found at W. Va.Code, 49-5-17— We stated in State v. Van Isler, 168 W.Va. 185 , 283 S.E.2d 836 (1981): W. VaCode, 49-5-17_, is part of a comprehensive legislative scheme relating to the handling, disposition and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Part of the purpose and intent behind that scheme is to protect'the anonymity of juvenile offenders and to assure that they are accorded a fresh start, un- haunted by past trouble, when they reach their majority. This purpose runs throughout Chapter 49 of the Code. The Legislature has used direct forceful language to effectuate this purpose. W. Va.Code, 49-7-1 [1978], for example, provides in part: “All records of the state department, the court and its officials, law-enforcement agencies and other agencies or facilities concerning a child as defined in this chapter shall be kept confidential and shall not be released[.]” 168 W.Va. at 186 , 283 S.E.2d at 837 (citations omitted). Thus, Van Islet (a salutary case that is strongly protective of the confidentiality of juvenile records) recognizes the rule that prohibits the wielding of juvenile records as a “sword” in the prosecution’s case-in-chief. But Van Islet also, by clearly limiting its articulation of this rule to the prosecution’s Case-in-chief, recognizes that the rule does not prohibit the use of juvenile records as a “shield” — to rebut- or impeach evidence that is present”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Tyler G.

2. “the possibility of bifurcation of a mercy phase is not an open door to the expansion of the ambit of evidence that the prosecution may put on against a defendant, in the absence of the defendant opening that door to permit narrowly focused impeachment or rebuttal evidence from the prosecution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 226 W. Va. 229 - State v. McLaughlin

3. “W. Va.Code, 49-5-17(d) ..., does not authorize a court to permit juvenile law enforcement records to be used in a criminal case as evidence in chief in the State’s ease.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Tyler G.