Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
105 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1893–2026 17 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences1997See generally Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278-82 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-83 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182, 189-91 (1993) (holding the harmless error doctrine will not apply if a constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction is read to the juiy); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 (1967), limited on other grounds Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (recognizing "there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error”); Tennant v. Ma 1997See generally Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278-82 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-83 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182, 189-91 (1993) (holding the harmless error doctrine will not apply if a constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction is read to the juiy); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 (1967), limited on other grounds Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (recognizing "there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error”); Tennant v. Ma | 4 | 8 |
State v. Atkinsgreen2 sentences2023Va. 502, 511-12 , 261 S.E.2d 55, 61-62 (1979) (setting forth that where evidence is offered by a defendant but refused, the harmless error test requires weighing the prejudicial impact of the error on the jury verdict). 2016See syl. pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980) (discussing the harmless error test, where improp'ér evidence of a non-constitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial). | 3 | 18 |
State v. Blakegreen2 sentences2024Va. 168 , 179, 875 S.E.2d 306 , 317 (2022) (“In conducting a harmless error analysis, the inquiry is fact specific.”); see also State v. Blake, 197 W. 1998However, we believe the State is correct in its urging that a Neuman violation should be subjected to a harmless error analysis. 38 Justice Cleckley observed in State v. Blake, 197 W.Va. 700, 712 , 478 S.E.2d 550, 562 (1996), “that the rule in Neuman was merely a procedural/prophylactic rule[.]” Blake articulated that “Neuman clarified applicable procedural law only, and not substantive or constitutional law[.]” Id. 197 W.Va. at 713, 478 S.E.2d at 563 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Ezzellgreen2 sentences2023See also Taylor v. State, 254 Ga. App. 150 , 561 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2002) (“Even if we assume that there was an improper comment on [defendant’s] silence, such an impropriety does not automatically require reversal and may be harmless error.”); State v. Tucker, 138 Idaho 296 , 62 P.3d 644, 647 (Ct. App. 2003) (“Commentary on a defendant’s right to remain silent, if determined to be constitutional error, is subject to the harmless error analysis[.]”); State v. Ezzell, 642 S.E.2d 274, 278 (N.C.Ct.App. 2007) (“[A] comment implicating a defendant’s right to remain silent, although erroneous, is not 2008It's a reasonably close case and the Supreme Court may in fact see it differently." [7] See also Taylor v. State, 254 Ga.App. 150 , 561 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2002) ("Even if we assume that there was an improper comment on [defendant's] silence, such an impropriety does not automatically require reversal and may be harmless error."); State v. Tucker, 138 Idaho 296 , 62 P.3d 644, 647 (2003) ("Commentary on a defendant's right to remain silent, if determined to be constitutional error, is subject to the harmless error analysis[.]"); State v. Ezzell, 182 N.C.App. 417 , 642 S.E.2d 274, 278 (2007) ("[A] | 3 | 3 |
State v. Tuckergreen2 sentences2023See also Taylor v. State, 254 Ga. App. 150 , 561 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2002) (“Even if we assume that there was an improper comment on [defendant’s] silence, such an impropriety does not automatically require reversal and may be harmless error.”); State v. Tucker, 138 Idaho 296 , 62 P.3d 644, 647 (Ct. App. 2003) (“Commentary on a defendant’s right to remain silent, if determined to be constitutional error, is subject to the harmless error analysis[.]”); State v. Ezzell, 642 S.E.2d 274, 278 (N.C.Ct.App. 2007) (“[A] comment implicating a defendant’s right to remain silent, although erroneous, is not 2023See also Taylor v. State, 254 Ga. App. 150 , 561 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2002) (“Even if we assume that there was an improper comment on [defendant’s] silence, such an impropriety does not automatically require reversal and may be harmless error.”); State v. Tucker, 138 Idaho 296 , 62 P.3d 644, 647 (Ct. App. 2003) (“Commentary on a defendant’s right to remain silent, if determined to be constitutional error, is subject to the harmless error analysis[.]”); State v. Ezzell, 642 S.E.2d 274, 278 (N.C.Ct.App. 2007) (“[A] comment implicating a defendant’s right to remain silent, although erroneous, is not | 3 | 3 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See also Taylor v. State, 254 Ga. App. 150 , 561 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2002) (“Even if we assume that there was an improper comment on [defendant’s] silence, such an impropriety does not automatically require reversal and may be harmless error.”); State v. Tucker, 138 Idaho 296 , 62 P.3d 644, 647 (Ct. App. 2003) (“Commentary on a defendant’s right to remain silent, if determined to be constitutional error, is subject to the harmless error analysis[.]”); State v. Ezzell, 642 S.E.2d 274, 278 (N.C.Ct.App. 2007) (“[A] comment implicating a defendant’s right to remain silent, although erroneous, is not 2023See also Taylor v. State, 254 Ga. App. 150 , 561 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2002) (“Even if we assume that there was an improper comment on [defendant’s] silence, such an impropriety does not automatically require reversal and may be harmless error.”); State v. Tucker, 138 Idaho 296 , 62 P.3d 644, 647 (Ct. App. 2003) (“Commentary on a defendant’s right to remain silent, if determined to be constitutional error, is subject to the harmless error analysis[.]”); State v. Ezzell, 642 S.E.2d 274, 278 (N.C.Ct.App. 2007) (“[A] comment implicating a defendant’s right to remain silent, although erroneous, is not | 3 | 3 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1997See generally Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278-82 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-83 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182, 189-91 (1993) (holding the harmless error doctrine will not apply if a constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction is read to the juiy); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 (1967), limited on other grounds Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (recognizing "there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error”); Tennant v. Ma 1997See generally Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278-82 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-83 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182, 189-91 (1993) (holding the harmless error doctrine will not apply if a constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction is read to the juiy); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710 (1967), limited on other grounds Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (recognizing "there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error”); Tennant v. Ma | 3 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Grob v. Blairgreen2 sentences2014Grob v. Blair, 158 W.Va. 647 , 214 S.E.2d 330 (1975), explaining as follows in syllabus point five: “Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Likewise, this Court noted in Blair: The doctrine of harmless error is firmly established by statute, court rule and decisions as a salutary aspect of the criminal law 5 of this State. 2014Grob v. Blair, 158 W.Va. 647 , 214 S.E.2d 330 (1975), explaining as follows in syllabus point five: “Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Likewise, this Court noted in Blair: The doctrine of harmless error is firmly established by statute, court rule and decisions as a salutary aspect of the criminal law 5 of this State. | 2 | 6 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences1998In a subsequent case, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), the Supreme Court examined the harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt standard in the context of a defendant’s denial of an opportunity to impeach a prosecution witness for bias and stated that a number of factors were to be considered: the importance of the witness’ testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of corroborating or contradicting testimony on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosec 1998In a subsequent case, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986), the Supreme Court examined the harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt standard in the context of a defendant’s denial of an opportunity to impeach a prosecution witness for bias and stated that a number of factors were to be considered: the importance of the witness’ testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of corroborating or contradicting testimony on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosec | 2 | 5 |
State v. Valentinegreen2 sentences2002In State v. Valentine, 208 W.Va. 513 , 541 S.E.2d 603 (2000), discussed by the dissent in support of its substantial compliance theory, this Court applied the harmless error doctrine to resolve the matter, rather than engaging in a substantial compliance deliberation. 2002In State v. Valentine, 208 W.Va. 513 , 541 S.E.2d 603 (2000), discussed by the dissent in support of its substantial compliance theory, this Court applied the harmless error doctrine to resolve the matter, rather than engaging in a substantial compliance deliberation. | 2 | 4 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2023This rule has been 21 applied in other jurisdictions where prosecutors have commented upon a defendant’s silence: Indeed, the general rule around the country is that “improper comments on a defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent are subject to a harmless error analysis and need not require reversal if the Court is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Jones v. State, 748 So.2d 1012, 1021-1022 (Fla.1999). 2007Indeed, the general rule around the country is that "improper comments on a defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent are subject to a harmless error analysis and need not require reversal if the Court is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the verdict." Jones v. State, 748 So.2d 1012, 1021-1022 (Fla.1999). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shulergreen2 sentences2023Indeed, such error will not earn the defendant a new trial if, after examining the entire record, this Court determines that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176 , 577 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2003) (“While the State may not comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent, an improper reference is subject to harmless error analysis.”). 2023Indeed, such error will not earn the defendant a new trial if, after examining the entire record, this Court determines that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176 , 577 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2003) (“While the State may not comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent, an improper reference is subject to harmless error analysis.”). | 2 | 2 |
Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp.green2 sentences2015See Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp., 172 W.Va. 435, 449 , 307 S.E.2d 603, 618 (1983) (finding that violation of the triál court’s in limine ruling was harmless error as it did not go to causation). 2015See Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp., 172 W.Va. 435, 449 , 307 S.E.2d 603, 618 (1983) (finding that violation of the triál court’s in limine ruling was harmless error as it did not go to causation). | 2 | 2 |
Lee v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Mullens, 179 W.Va. 567371 S.E.2d 64 (1988) (explaining that violation of confrontation clause is subject to harmless-error analysis (citing Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986) and Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972)); see also State v. Blevins, 231 W.Va. 135 , 744 S.E.2d 245 (2013) (confrontation clause violation was harmless beyond reasonable doubt). 1988See Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. at 547 , 106 S.Ct. at 2066 ; Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). 8 . | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Pottergreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Hastinggreen | 2 | 2 |
Howard v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co.green2 sentences2016See syl. pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980) (discussing the harmless error test, where improp'ér evidence of a non-constitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial). 1992HARMLESS ERROR Rule 52(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The harmless error doctrine was interpreted by this Court in syllabus point 6 of State v. Smith, 178 W.Va. 104 , 358 S.E.2d 188 (1987) (quoting Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980)) as follows: ‘Where improper evidence of a noncon-stitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial, the t | 1 | 10 |
Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.green2 sentences2016See syl. pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980) (discussing the harmless error test, where improp'ér evidence of a non-constitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial). 1992HARMLESS ERROR Rule 52(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The harmless error doctrine was interpreted by this Court in syllabus point 6 of State v. Smith, 178 W.Va. 104 , 358 S.E.2d 188 (1987) (quoting Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980)) as follows: ‘Where improper evidence of a noncon-stitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial, the t | 1 | 10 |
Shenandoah Sales & Service, Inc. v. Assessor of Jefferson Countygreen2 sentences2017In Shenandoah Sales & Service, Inc. v. Assessor of Jefferson County, 228 W.Va. 762, 773 , 724 S.E.2d 733, 744 (2012), we found that a failure to follow proper procedure in ruling on a motion for disqualification was subject to a harmless error analysis. 2017In Shenandoah Sales & Service, Inc. v. Assessor of Jefferson County, 228 W.Va. 762, 773 , 724 S.E.2d 733, 744 (2012), we found that a failure to follow proper procedure in ruling on a motion for disqualification was subject to a harmless error analysis. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2022We have consistently found that a violation of the requirement that a defendant be present at all critical stages of the criminal proceeding is subject to the harmless error analysis. 21 See e.g., Syl. pt. 6, Boyd, 160 W. 1981We held in State v. Boyd, 160 W.Va. 234 , 233 S.E.2d 710 (1977) that the inalienable constitutional right cited was subject to the harmless error doctrine. | 1 | 4 |
Robert L. Holcomb v. David Ballardgreen2 sentences2018Petitioner’s final contention is that the circuit court’s harmless error analysis regarding any failure to duly caution him is improper and warrants reversal.1 Indeed, we held in Syllabus Point 1 of Holcomb v. Ballard, 232 W.Va. 253 , 752 S.E.2d 284 (2013) that “[t]he procedural recidivist requirements of W.Va. 2018Petitioner’s final contention is that the circuit court’s harmless error analysis regarding any failure to duly caution him is improper and warrants reversal.1 Indeed, we held in Syllabus Point 1 of Holcomb v. Ballard, 232 W.Va. 253 , 752 S.E.2d 284 (2013) that “[t]he procedural recidivist requirements of W.Va. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Sam T. Iaquinta, United States of America v. Velma E. Shinegreen2 sentences2022Va. 125 , 488 S.E.2d 400 (1997) (holding that the harmless error test applied to Rule 11(e)(2) violations); and United States v. Iaquinta, 719 F.2d 83, 85 (4th Cir. 1983) (reversing a conviction for failure to comply with Fed. 2001Since Iaquinta, supra, was decided, several United States Courts of Appeals have adopted a harmless error analysis with respect to the omission of the Rule 11(e)(2) admonition. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1992HARMLESS ERROR Rule 52(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The harmless error doctrine was interpreted by this Court in syllabus point 6 of State v. Smith, 178 W.Va. 104 , 358 S.E.2d 188 (1987) (quoting Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980)) as follows: ‘Where improper evidence of a noncon-stitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial, the t 1992HARMLESS ERROR Rule 52(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The harmless error doctrine was interpreted by this Court in syllabus point 6 of State v. Smith, 178 W.Va. 104 , 358 S.E.2d 188 (1987) (quoting Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980)) as follows: ‘Where improper evidence of a noncon-stitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial, the t | 1 | 2 |
Schneble v. Floridagreen2 sentences2015See State v. Mullens, 179 W.Va. 567371 S.E.2d 64 (1988) (explaining that violation of confrontation clause is subject to harmless-error analysis (citing Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986) and Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972)); see also State v. Blevins, 231 W.Va. 135 , 744 S.E.2d 245 (2013) (confrontation clause violation was harmless beyond reasonable doubt). 1988See Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. at 547 , 106 S.Ct. at 2066 ; Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). 8 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Salmonsgreen2 sentences2005Equally important, as we said in State v. Salmons, 203 W.Va. 561, 582 , 509 S.E.2d 842, 863 (1998), "[i]t defies logic for this Court to hold that a harmless error analysis applies to substantive constitutional violations, yet hold that a harmless error analysis does not apply to a prophylactic rule designed to protect enforcement of a constitutional right." In fact, "[o]ur cases consistently have held that nonconstitutional errors are harmless unless the reviewing court has grave doubt as to whether the [error] substantially swayed the verdict." State v. Potter, 197 W.Va. 734, 748 , 478 S.E.2 2005Equally important, as we said in State v. Salmons, 203 W.Va. 561, 582 , 509 S.E.2d 842, 863 (1998), "[i]t defies logic for this Court to hold that a harmless error analysis applies to substantive constitutional violations, yet hold that a harmless error analysis does not apply to a prophylactic rule designed to protect enforcement of a constitutional right." In fact, "[o]ur cases consistently have held that nonconstitutional errors are harmless unless the reviewing court has grave doubt as to whether the [error] substantially swayed the verdict." State v. Potter, 197 W.Va. 734, 748 , 478 S.E.2 | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Jabree Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Durhamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Bashamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. James Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. LaRockgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. D.J. Coopergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hoffman v. Wheeling Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tammy R.green | 1 | 1 |
| State of West Virginia v. Roy Franklin Hillberry, IIgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Crabtreegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of West Virginia v. Christopher Wayne Bowlinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of West Virginia Terry Allen Blevinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Persongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. West Virginia
green
2 sentences1992HARMLESS ERROR Rule 52(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The harmless error doctrine was interpreted by this Court in syllabus point 6 of State v. Smith, 178 W.Va. 104 , 358 S.E.2d 188 (1987) (quoting Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980)) as follows: ‘Where improper evidence of a noncon-stitutional nature is introduced by the State in a criminal trial, the t 1990While the majority relies on the harmless error rule set out in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Atkins, 163 W.Va. 502 , 261 S.E.2d 55 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904 , 100 S.Ct. 1081 , 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980), it undertakes no careful analysis of the rule. | 10 | 1980–2015 |
State Road Commission v. Bowling
green
2 sentences1969Otis Bowling & Idell Bowling, decided at this term, W.Va., 166 S.E.2d 119 , the Court held: The doctrine of harmless error is firmly established by statute, court rule and court decisions as a salutary aspect of the law of this state. 1969Va. 688 , 166 S. E.2d 119 , the Court held: The doctrine of harmless error is firmly established by statute, court rule and court decisions as a salutary aspect of the law of this state. | 6 | 1969–1980 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2022Third, I wholeheartedly disagree with the court’s conclusion in Vogh that the failure to swear the jury in a criminal case, which is part and parcel of constitutional “fair trial” provisions, is subject to a harmless error analysis less rigorous than that articulated by this Court in numerous decisions: “We have long held that ‘[e]rrors involving deprivation of constitutional rights will be regarded as harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the violation contributed to the conviction.” Syl. pt. 20, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). 2022Third, I wholeheartedly disagree with the court’s conclusion in Vogh that the failure to swear the jury in a criminal case, which is part and parcel of constitutional “fair trial” provisions, is subject to a harmless error analysis less rigorous than that articulated by this Court in numerous decisions: “We have long held that ‘[e]rrors involving deprivation of constitutional rights will be regarded as harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the violation contributed to the conviction.” Syl. pt. 20, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). | 4 | 1977–2022 |
Fahy v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences1978In devising this harmless error standard, the Court followed the approach it conceived in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963), where it stated that the harmless error question must be answered by determining "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." 375 U.S. at 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. at 230, 11 L.Ed.2d at 173 . 1978In devising this harmless error standard, the Court followed the approach it conceived in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963), where it stated that the harmless error question must be answered by determining "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." 375 U.S. at 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. at 230, 11 L.Ed.2d at 173 . | 4 | 1978–1995 |
Boggs v. Settle
green
2 sentences1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par 1988We need not reach the Frye issue in the present case. 4 The harmless error rule, Rule 61 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, applies to this assignment of error involving the admissibility of expert testimony on the novel prosthesis. 5 In syllabus point 2 of Boggs v. Settle, 150 W.Va. 330 , 145 S.E.2d 446 (1965), the Court held: “On appeal of a case involving an action covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court will disregard and regard as harmless any error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court which does not affect the substantial rights of the par | 4 | 1969–1988 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences2022Va. 125 , 488 S.E.2d 400 (1997) (holding that the harmless error test applied to Rule 11(e)(2) violations); and United States v. Iaquinta, 719 F.2d 83, 85 (4th Cir. 1983) (reversing a conviction for failure to comply with Fed. 2001Ultimately, this Court stated that "[u]nless the factual evidence is clear that no substantial rights were disregarded, the harmless error rule of Rule 11(h) [1995] [2] should not be applied." Stone, 200 W.Va. at 129 , 488 S.E.2d at 404 . | 2 | 2001–2022 |
State v. Neuman
green
2 sentences2013Consequently, we held the following in Syllabus point 15 of Salmons : A violation of State v. Neuman, 179 W.Va. 580 , 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988), is subject to a harmless error analysis. 2013Consequently, we held the following in Syllabus point 15 of Salmons : A violation of State v. Neuman, 179 W.Va. 580 , 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988), is subject to a harmless error analysis. | 2 | 2000–2013 |
| State v. Kelley green | 2 | 1994–1995 |
| State v. McAboy green | 2 | 1979–1992 |
| Gilland v. Commonwealth green | 2 | 1955–1955 |
| Katherine B. T. v. Jackson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State Ex Rel. Housden v. Adams green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Marple green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Lightner green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Floray green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Bradshaw green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Jenkins green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Baker v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Kitts v. United States green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Watson v. United States green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Perkins v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Young green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Ferrell green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re Burks green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| United States v. Olivia Martinez-Martinez green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| cluster 727993 green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Taliaferro v. United States neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Rafael Noriega-Milln, A/K/A Rafi green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Prescott v. Hines, Director General green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.