225 W. Va. 192 - State Ex Rel. Dunlap v. McBride’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Nix v. Whiteside · 157 W. Va. 640 - State v. Thomas · 194 W. Va. 3 - State v. Miller
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The type of evidence that is admissible in the mercy phase of a bifurcated first degree murder proceeding is much broader than the evidence admissible for purposes of determining a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Admissible evidence necessarily encompasses evidence of the defendant’s character, including evidence concerning the defendant’s past, present and future, as well as evidence surrounding the nature of the crime committed by the defendant that warranted a jury finding the defendant guilty of first degree murder, so long as that evidence is found by the trial court to be relevant under Rulé 401 of the West ■Virginia Rules of Evidence and not unduly prejudicial pursuant to Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] trial court has wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed. And a sentencing court is not restricted by the federal constitution to the information received in open court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is clear that the LaRock factors are concerned with a party being able to present evidence for sentencing that may not be admissible on the merits of a prosecution. In this case, the State had a considerable amount of additional bad acts evidence involving Mr. Dunlap that may not have been admissible during the guilt phase, even if the State had timely brought the evidence to the court's attention. However, this evidence was highly relevant as to the decision of whether Mr. Dunlap should receive mercy and obtain a sentence that would allow him to be eligible for parole. Ultimately, we agree with the trial court that "there is no evidence that would lead [us] to conclude that the bifurcation herein was constitutional error." More importantly, Mr. Dunlap has not articulated any plausible prejudicial effect from the bifurcation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.