totality of the circumstances test in West Virginia

11 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Lawsgreen wva · 1978 · cited in 3 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1995 2 sentences 1985We discussed the general standards relating to juvenile confessions, where there is no applicable statutory provision, in State v. Laws, 162 W.Va. 359 , 251 S.E.2d 769 (1978), where we concluded in Syllabus Point 1: “There is no constitutional impediment which prevents a minor above the age of tender years solely by virtue of his minority from executing an effective waiver of rights; however, such waiver must be closely scrutinized under the totality of the circumstances.” In Laws , we concluded that a confession by a juvenile should be judged by the totality of the circumstances test, with a 1985We discussed the general standards relating to juvenile confessions, where there is no applicable statutory provision, in State v. Laws, 162 W.Va. 359 , 251 S.E.2d 769 (1978), where we concluded in Syllabus Point 1: “There is no constitutional impediment which prevents a minor above the age of tender years solely by virtue of his minority from executing an effective waiver of rights; however, such waiver must be closely scrutinized under the totality of the circumstances.” In Laws , we concluded that a confession by a juvenile should be judged by the totality of the circumstances test, with a	1	3
Manson v. Brathwaitegreen scotus · 1977 · cited in 2 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1978–1985 2 sentences 1985In State v. Boyd, 167 W.Va. 385 , 280 S.E. 669 , 678-9 (1981), this Court, in reliance on footnote 9 of Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106-7 , 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2249 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 149 (1977), applied the totality of the circumstances test, State v. Casdorph, supra; State v. Stollings, 158 W.Va. 585 , 212 S.E.2d 745 (1975); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), to determine whether evidence of an out-of-court identification should be suppressed. 1985In State v. Boyd, 167 W.Va. 385 , 280 S.E. 669 , 678-9 (1981), this Court, in reliance on footnote 9 of Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106-7 , 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2249 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 149 (1977), applied the totality of the circumstances test, State v. Casdorph, supra; State v. Stollings, 158 W.Va. 585 , 212 S.E.2d 745 (1975); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), to determine whether evidence of an out-of-court identification should be suppressed.	1	2
State v. Sugggreen wva · 1995 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021“The majority of jurisdictions, including West Virginia, rely on the totality of the circumstances test in deciding whether statements by a juvenile were given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” State v. Sugg, 193 W. 2021Va. 388, 397 , 456 S.E.2d 469, 478 (1995).	1	1
In Re Keangreen ri · 1987 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See State v. Laws, 162 W.Va. 359, 362 , 251 S.E.2d 769, 772 (1978) 9 ; In re Kean, 520 A.2d 1271, 1274-75 (R.I.1987) (case citations omitted). 1995Requiring the presence of parents in every ease in which a juvenile is in custody and informed of his rights “would be overly protective; would exclude from evidence juvenile statements that are, in fact, knowingly and voluntarily given; and would restrict law *398 enforcement unnecessarily.” In re Kean, 520 A.2d at 1275 .	1	1
United States v. Wadegreen scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989One of the major concerns with identification testimony was explained in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1933 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1158 (1967): “A major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification.” 4 The defendant claims that the procedure used here rendered the out-of-court identification unreliable under the totality of the circumstances test of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 18 1989One of the major concerns with identification testimony was explained in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1933 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1158 (1967): “A major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification.” 4 The defendant claims that the procedure used here rendered the out-of-court identification unreliable under the totality of the circumstances test of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 18	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Neil v. Biggers green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 1989One of the major concerns with identification testimony was explained in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1933 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1158 (1967): “A major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification.” 4 The defendant claims that the procedure used here rendered the out-of-court identification unreliable under the totality of the circumstances test of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 18 1989One of the major concerns with identification testimony was explained in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1933 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1158 (1967): “A major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification.” 4 The defendant claims that the procedure used here rendered the out-of-court identification unreliable under the totality of the circumstances test of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 18	2	1985–1989
State v. Casdorph green wva · 1976 2 sentences 1989We adopted the Biggers test, which relates to the suppression of an in-court identification of the defendant because of an impermissibly suggestive out-of-court identification, in Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Casdorph, 159 W.Va. 909 , 230 S.E.2d 476 (1976): “In determining whether an out-of-court identification of a defendant is so tainted as to require suppression of an in-court identification a court must look to the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the identification was reliable, even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive, with due regard given to such factor 1989We adopted the Biggers test, which relates to the suppression of an in-court identification of the defendant because of an impermissibly suggestive out-of-court identification, in Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Casdorph, 159 W.Va. 909 , 230 S.E.2d 476 (1976): “In determining whether an out-of-court identification of a defendant is so tainted as to require suppression of an in-court identification a court must look to the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the identification was reliable, even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive, with due regard given to such factor	2	1978–1989
Illinois v. Gates green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1994The Supreme Court in White applied the totality of the circumstances test, as it did in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), with the only difference being Gates considered an anonymous tip in a probable-cause context. 1994The Supreme Court in White applied the totality of the circumstances test, as it did in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), with the only difference being Gates considered an anonymous tip in a probable-cause context.	1	1994–1994
Alabama v. White green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 1994Although not everything the anonymous caller said in White proved true, the Supreme Court found the caller did accurately indicate the location of the building the defendant would be leaving, the type and description of the car the defendant would be driving, the time frame the defendant would depart, and 433 the destination of the defendant. 9 Under the totality of the circumstances approach, the Supreme Court considered the police officers’ personal observations of the facts and the weight the anonymous tip should be given “in light of its indicia of reliability as established through indep 1994Although not everything the anonymous caller said in White proved true, the Supreme Court found the caller did accurately indicate the location of the building the defendant would be leaving, the type and description of the car the defendant would be driving, the time frame the defendant would depart, and 433 the destination of the defendant. 9 Under the totality of the circumstances approach, the Supreme Court considered the police officers’ personal observations of the facts and the weight the anonymous tip should be given “in light of its indicia of reliability as established through indep	1	1994–1994
State v. Kennedy green wva · 1978 2 sentences 1989We adopted the Biggers test, which relates to the suppression of an in-court identification of the defendant because of an impermissibly suggestive out-of-court identification, in Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Casdorph, 159 W.Va. 909 , 230 S.E.2d 476 (1976): “In determining whether an out-of-court identification of a defendant is so tainted as to require suppression of an in-court identification a court must look to the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the identification was reliable, even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive, with due regard given to such factor 1989We adopted the Biggers test, which relates to the suppression of an in-court identification of the defendant because of an impermissibly suggestive out-of-court identification, in Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Casdorph, 159 W.Va. 909 , 230 S.E.2d 476 (1976): “In determining whether an out-of-court identification of a defendant is so tainted as to require suppression of an in-court identification a court must look to the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the identification was reliable, even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive, with due regard given to such factor	1	1989–1989
State v. Stollings green wva · 1975 2 sentences 1985In State v. Boyd, 167 W.Va. 385 , 280 S.E. 669 , 678-9 (1981), this Court, in reliance on footnote 9 of Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106-7 , 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2249 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 149 (1977), applied the totality of the circumstances test, State v. Casdorph, supra; State v. Stollings, 158 W.Va. 585 , 212 S.E.2d 745 (1975); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), to determine whether evidence of an out-of-court identification should be suppressed. 1985In State v. Boyd, 167 W.Va. 385 , 280 S.E. 669 , 678-9 (1981), this Court, in reliance on footnote 9 of Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106-7 , 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2249 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 149 (1977), applied the totality of the circumstances test, State v. Casdorph, supra; State v. Stollings, 158 W.Va. 585 , 212 S.E.2d 745 (1975); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), to determine whether evidence of an out-of-court identification should be suppressed.	1	1985–1985
Dunn v. State green texcrimapp · 1985 1 sentence 1985E.g., Yates v. State, 467 So.2d 884 (Miss.1984); Dunn v. State, 696 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (En Banc).	1	1985–1985
Yates v. State green miss · 1984 1 sentence 1985E.g., Yates v. State, 467 So.2d 884 (Miss.1984); Dunn v. State, 696 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (En Banc).	1	1985–1985
Fare v. Michael C. green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 1985We adopted the totality of the circumstances rule which is in accord with a majority of jurisdictions and Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979). 5 . 1985We adopted the totality of the circumstances rule which is in accord with a majority of jurisdictions and Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979). 5 .	1	1985–1985
State v. Boyd green wva · 1981 1 sentence 1985In State v. Boyd, 167 W.Va. 385 , 280 S.E. 669 , 678-9 (1981), this Court, in reliance on footnote 9 of Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106-7 , 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2249 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 149 (1977), applied the totality of the circumstances test, State v. Casdorph, supra; State v. Stollings, 158 W.Va. 585 , 212 S.E.2d 745 (1975); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), to determine whether evidence of an out-of-court identification should be suppressed.	1	1985–1985
State v. Persinger green wva · 1982 1 sentence 1982While we noted that such a delay is but one factor in applying the totality of the circumstances test, we held in syllabus point six: “The delay in taking the defendant to a magistrate may be a critical factor where it appears that the primary purpose of the delay was to obtain a confession from the defendant.” The opinion observed that “an unjustifiable and unreasonable delay in taking the accused before a magistrate after his initial arrest may in itself be sufficient to render a confession involuntary.” 286 S.E.2d at 271 .	1	1982–1982
State v. Slie green wva · 1975 1 sentence 1978State v. Casdorph, _ W.Va. _, 230 S.E.2d 476 (1976); State v. Slie, _ W.Va. _, 213 S.E.2d 109 (1975).	1	1978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WV § W. Va. Code § 62-1-5 (4) WV § W. Va. Code § 61-2-12 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 630 (1972–2026) OH 373 (1984–2026) TX 296 (1971–2026) IL 179 (1974–2026) NC 174 (1978–2026) NJ 166 (1983–2026) CA 147 (1977–2026) TN 133 (1971–2026) LA 106 (1978–2025) MN 99 (1983–2025) GA 96 (1976–2026) WA 93 (1982–2026) AL 90 (1977–2025) CO 89 (1981–2026) FL 89 (1981–2025) WI 88 (1973–2026) ID 77 (1979–2026) MD 77 (1975–2026) KS 75 (1976–2026) VA 74 (1986–2026) CT 68 (1982–2026) MI 68 (1970–2026) MS 57 (1985–2026) ND 57 (1988–2023) IN 52 (1983–2026) UT 48 (1980–2026) IA 46 (1970–2025) MT 43 (1984–2024) AR 41 (1983–2024) NE 40 (1983–2026) ME 40 (1979–2022) MO 38 (1966–2025) DE 34 (1978–2026) NM 33 (1990–2026) MA 33 (1983–2026) NH 32 (1980–2023) AZ 32 (1982–2023) SC 32 (1985–2023) HI 32 (1994–2025) KY 30 (1999–2026) DC 27 (1976–2026) RI 26 (1984–2026) SD 25 (1980–2019) NY 23 (1981–2025) VT 22 (1987–2023) OR 18 (1982–2026) NV 17 (1986–2026) WY 11 (1988–2022) WV 11 (1978–2021) OK 8 (1979–2021) AK 6 (1987–2019) VI 3 (2009–2026)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check