223 W. Va. 573 - State v. Corra’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On the one hand, many eases have recognized several types of variance that do not prejudice the defendant: (1) When the variance or amendment of the indictment is one of form only. See, e.g., Syllabus Point 3, State v. Adams, [ 193 W.Va. 277 , 456 S.E.2d 4 (1995)] (indictment could be changed to correct name of owner of stolen goods). (2) When the proof at trial merely narrowed the basis for conviction and did not broaden the charges beyond what was in the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 , 105 S.Ct. 1811 , 85 L.Ed.2d 99 (1985) (conviction upheld when indictment alleged two methods by which defendant defrauded his insurer, but proof at trial showed only one of those two methods). (3) Where the date of the crime in the indictment and the date proven that the crime actually occurred differs. See, e.g., Syllabus Point 4, State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264 , 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972) (“A variance in the pleading and the proof with regard to the time of the commission of a crime does not constitute prejudicial error where time is not of the essence of the crime charged”). (4) Typographical errors that do not affect the substance of the allegations in the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Morrow, 925 F.2d 779 (4th Cir.1991) (omission of the first digit in a seven digit serial number of the firearm set forth in the indictment did not result in a substantial amendment). (5) When the proof at trial does not add anything new to the charges. See, e.g., United ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 228 W. Va. 315 - State v. McCartney

2. ““Invited error” is a cardinal rule of appellate review applied to a wide range of conduct. It is a branch of the doctrine of waiver which prevents a party from inducing an inappropriate or erroneous response and then later seeking to profit from that error. The idea of invited error is ... to protect principles underlying notions of judicial economy and integrity by allocating appropriate responsibility for the inducement of error. Having induced an error, a party in a normal case may not at a later stage of the trial use the error to set aside its immediate and adverse consequences. State v. Crabtree, 198 W.Va. 620, 627 , 482 S.E.2d 605, 612 (1996). Under our prior holdings on this issue, it was not error for the trial court to bring the jury back into the courtroom to listen to the tapes. However, even if we had found this to be error under the facts of this ease, Mr. Hughes invited such error and cannot now complain on appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 225 W. Va. 218 - State v. Hughes

3. “No principle of procedural due process is more cléarly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Darius Henning