State Ex Rel. Smith v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While a criminal trial is unwarranted when pretrial psychiatric examinations clearly reveal by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused at the time the crime was committed, was not criminally responsible for his acts, W.Va.Code, 27-6A-l [1977] et seq. provides no mandatory pretrial mechanism for resolving the issue of criminal responsibility; consequently, adjudication of criminal responsibility before trial is entirely within the combined discretion of the trial court judge and the prosecuting attorney, since absent a motion to nolle an indictment by the prosecuting attorney based on persuasive pretrial medical reports, the trial court judge has no discretion to deny the State a trial by jury on the issue of criminal responsibility.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 176 W. Va. 145 - Good v. Handlan · 171 W. Va. 687 - State v. Bias

2. “"Since we believe that syl. pt. 1 of Walton v. Casey, supra, correctly states proper policy with regard to the humane treatment of those not criminally responsible for their acts, we reaffirm today our conclusion that trying people who are obviously not criminally responsible is an unnecessary strain upon a defendant in need of treatment as well as a waste of judicial, prosecutor, jury, and lawyer time. Nonetheless, the decision regarding whether to adopt the policy expressed in syl. pt. 1 of Walton v. Casey, supra, is within the discretion of the trial court judge and the prosecutor ...." Even by Smith's modification of Walton, defense counsel should have moved the court to exercise its discretion to dismiss criminal proceedings against Bias.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 W. Va. 687 - State v. Bias

3. “We repeat for emphasis, and lest we be misunderstood, that evidence as to insanity at any time — the present as well as any other — may be admitted insofar as it is relevant to the mental condition of the accused at the time of the offense; that is where it is used by a witness as part of the data upon which he bases a conclusion as to the mental condition at the time of the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 W. Va. 705 - State v. Neal