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.
13 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hutchinsongreen2 sentences2021Also, plain error is not typically recognized in the giving of an erroneous instruction, “even of constitutional magnitude, where the giving of the erroneous instruction did not substantially impair the truth-finding function of the trial court.” State v. Hutchinson, 176 W. 2018Further, this Court does not ordinarily recognize plain error in the giving of an erroneous instruction, “even of constitutional magnitude, where the giving of the erroneous instruction did not substantially impair the truth-finding function of the trial.” State v. Hutchinson, 176 W.Va. 172 , 342 S.E.2d 138 (1986). | 2 | 10 |
State v. Armstronggreen2 sentences1989State v. Armstrong, ___ W.Va. ___, 369 S.E.2d 870, 880-81 (1988) (citing Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Hutchinson, ___ W.Va. ___, 342 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1986)); See also Syl.Pt. 18, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445, 449 (1974). 1989State v. Armstrong, 179 W.Va. 435 , 369 S.E.2d 870, 880-81 (1988) (citing Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Hutchinson, 176 W.Va. 172 , 342 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1986)); See also Syl.Pt. 18, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445, 449 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1989State v. Armstrong, ___ W.Va. ___, 369 S.E.2d 870, 880-81 (1988) (citing Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Hutchinson, ___ W.Va. ___, 342 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1986)); See also Syl.Pt. 18, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445, 449 (1974). 1989State v. Armstrong, ___ W.Va. ___, 369 S.E.2d 870, 880-81 (1988) (citing Syl.Pt. 2, State v. Hutchinson, ___ W.Va. ___, 342 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1986)); See also Syl.Pt. 18, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445, 449 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hamrickgreen2 sentences1986See State v. Hamrick, 160 W.Va. 673, 675 , 236 S.E.2d 247, 248 (1977). *559 The appellant’s conviction of receiving stolen property is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Wood County for further proceedings consistent with the principles set forth in this opinion. 1986See State v. Hamrick, 160 W.Va. 673, 675 , 236 S.E.2d 247, 248 (1977). *559 The appellant’s conviction of receiving stolen property is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Wood County for further proceedings consistent with the principles set forth in this opinion. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Houdeyshell
green
1 sentence2024“Although this Court may, under Rule 30 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, notice plain error in the giving of an erroneous instruction (in the absence of a proper and timely objection at trial), this Court will not ordinarily recognize plain error under such circumstances, even of constitutional magnitude, where the giving of the erroneous instruction did not substantially impair the truth-finding function of the trial.” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Hutchinson, 174 W. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State of West Virginia v. Brian E. Lyon, II
green
1 sentence2024State v. Lyon, 250 W. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. LaRock
green
2 sentences2004In syllabus point seven of State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 , 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996), this Court concisely described the appropriate usage of the plain error doctrine, as follows: An unpreserved error is deemed plain and affects substantial rights only if the reviewing court finds the lower court skewed the fundamental fairness or basic integrity of the proceedings in some major respect. 2004In syllabus point seven of State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294 , 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996), this Court concisely described the appropriate usage of the plain error doctrine, as follows: An unpreserved error is deemed plain and affects substantial rights only if the reviewing court finds the lower court skewed the fundamental fairness or basic integrity of the proceedings in some major respect. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Grubbs
green
2 sentences1988We must, therefore, determine whether the error may be reviewed as “plain error” under Rule 30 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 We discussed the application of our plain error rule to infirm jury instructions in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Hutchinson, 176 W.Va. 172 , 342 S.E.2d 138 (1986): “Although this Court may, under Rule 30 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, notice plain error in the giving of an erroneous instruction (in the absence of a proper and timely objection at trial), this Court will not ordinarily recognize plain error under such circumstances, even of const 1988We must, therefore, determine whether the error may be reviewed as “plain error” under Rule 30 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 We discussed the application of our plain error rule to infirm jury instructions in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Hutchinson, 176 W.Va. 172 , 342 S.E.2d 138 (1986): “Although this Court may, under Rule 30 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, notice plain error in the giving of an erroneous instruction (in the absence of a proper and timely objection at trial), this Court will not ordinarily recognize plain error under such circumstances, even of const | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Hatala
neutral
2 sentences1988We must, therefore, determine whether the error may be reviewed as “plain error” under Rule 30 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 We discussed the application of our plain error rule to infirm jury instructions in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Hutchinson, 176 W.Va. 172 , 342 S.E.2d 138 (1986): “Although this Court may, under Rule 30 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, notice plain error in the giving of an erroneous instruction (in the absence of a proper and timely objection at trial), this Court will not ordinarily recognize plain error under such circumstances, even of const 1988We must, therefore, determine whether the error may be reviewed as “plain error” under Rule 30 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 We discussed the application of our plain error rule to infirm jury instructions in Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Hutchinson, 176 W.Va. 172 , 342 S.E.2d 138 (1986): “Although this Court may, under Rule 30 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, notice plain error in the giving of an erroneous instruction (in the absence of a proper and timely objection at trial), this Court will not ordinarily recognize plain error under such circumstances, even of const | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.