Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 W. Va. 450 - State v. Waldron

218 W. Va. 450 - State v. Waldron’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Allen v. United States · Weatherford v. Bursey · 194 W. Va. 657 - State v. Guthrie · 194 W. Va. 3 - State v. Miller · 196 W. Va. 294 - State v. LaRock

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. “it is within the discretion of a trial judge to admit photographs depicting trails of blood and the body of a shooting victim. See State v. Wheeler, 187 W.Va. 379 , 419 S.E.2d 447 (1992). Moreover, in State v. Young , 173 W.Va. 1 , 311 S.E.2d 118 (1983), we recognized that a body of a victim after autopsy procedures may be gruesome; however, where the body has not undergone such procedures, the picture is not gruesome. Accord State v. Harper , 179 W.Va. 24 , 365 S.E.2d 69 (1987). We have also relied on the amount of blood and gore in the picture, and in whether the body is pictured with unnatural facial positions or contortions in determining that the photograph is not gruesome and in determining whether a photograph is prejudicial. See State v. Parsons , 181 W.Va. 56 , 380 S.E.2d 223 (1989). Moreover, pictures that do not depict excessive blood and gore, but show puncture wounds are relevant to corroborate the State's testimony. See State v. Haddox , 166 W.Va. 630 , 276 S.E.2d 788 (1981).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Rule 401 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence requires the trial court to determine the relevancy of the exhibit on the basis of whether the photograph is probative as to a fact of consequence in the case. The trial court then must consider whether the probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed by the counterfactors listed in Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. As to the balancing under Rule 403, the trial court enjoys broad discretion. The Rule 403 balancing test is essentially a matter of trial conduct, and the trial court’s discretion will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.