214 W. Va. 525 - State v. Joseph’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The diminished capacity defense is available in West Virginia to permit a defendant to introduce expert testimony regarding a mental disease or defect that rendered the defendant incapable, at the time the crime was committed, of forming a mental state that is an element of the crime charged. This defense is asserted ordinarily when the offense charged is a crime for which there is a lesser included offense. This is so because the successful use of this defense renders the defendant not guilty of the particular crime charged, but does not preclude a conviction for a lesser included offense.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Donald Dunn · State of West Virginia v. Jeremy Lambert

2. “We likewise find that the testimony of Drs. Bear'd and Hughes should have been admitted insofar as it established that Mr. Joseph suffered from a mental impairment for which he required hospitalization and treatment. While the testimony, provided by these two doctors, in and of itself, was inadequate to negate the State’s evidence of the intent element of the -murder for which Mr. Joseph was charged, their testimony was relevant in establishing that Mr, Joseph suffered from a mental impairment for which he was hospitalized a short time prior to committing the murder, and which affected his cognitive abilities, ie. his ability to reason and think things through.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Donald Dunn

3. “Dr. Solomon’s testimony was addressed directly to Mr. Joseph’s mental capacity at the time of his criminal offense and Dr. Solomon opined that Mr. Joseph was, due to his mental defect, unable “to formulate intent or malice or to premeditate under these circumstances.” Thus, in the instant case, there plainly was sufficient evidence to allow Dr. Solomon to testify before the jury. Accordingly, the circuit court was clearly wrong in excluding this evidence and prohibiting Mr. Joseph from presenting his defense attacking the State’s case in chief.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 222 W. Va. 73 - State v. Ferguson