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.
8 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2014 0 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. Dolingreen2 sentences1990Further, in State v. Jackson, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 383 S.E.2d 79, 82 (1989), this Court recognized that: [W]here the state attempt[s] to introduce evidence of other crimes or wrongful acts on the part of a defendant to prove system, motive, intent or opportunity, as outlined in Rule [404(b) ], known as the collateral crime rule, `we have emphasized that [to be admissible, evidence of] the collateral crimes must [relate to crimes that] have occurred reasonably close in point of time to the present offense.' State v. Dolin, ___ W.Va. ___, 347 S.E.2d 208, 214 (1986). 1990Further, in State v. Jackson, 181 W.Va. 447, 450 , 383 S.E.2d 79, 82 (1989), this Court recognized that: [W]here the state attempt[s] to introduce evidence of other crimes or wrongful acts on the part of a defendant to prove system, motive, intent or opportunity, as outlined in Rule [404(b)], known as the collateral crime rule, ‘we have emphasized that [to be admissible, evidence of] the collateral crimes must [relate to crimes that] have occurred reasonably close in point of time to the present offense.’ State v. Dolin, 176 W.Va. 688 , 347 S.E.2d 208, 214 (1986). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Gumgreen2 sentences1993Even if the appellant was charged with arson in connection with the car, “this testimony was not used to show [his] propensity toward criminality, but rather it served to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime, and thus it is an exception to the collateral crime rule.” Acord v. Hedrick, 176 W.Va. 154, 157-58 , 342 S.E.2d 120, 123-24 (1986); State v. Gum, 172 W.Va. 534, 543 , 309 S.E.2d 32, 41 (1983); syl. pt. 12, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). 1993Even if the appellant was charged with arson in connection with the car, “this testimony was not used to show [his] propensity toward criminality, but rather it served to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime, and thus it is an exception to the collateral crime rule.” Acord v. Hedrick, 176 W.Va. 154, 157-58 , 342 S.E.2d 120, 123-24 (1986); State v. Gum, 172 W.Va. 534, 543 , 309 S.E.2d 32, 41 (1983); syl. pt. 12, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Messergreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). 1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). | 2 | 2 |
Acord v. Hedrickgreen2 sentences1993Even if the appellant was charged with arson in connection with the car, “this testimony was not used to show [his] propensity toward criminality, but rather it served to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime, and thus it is an exception to the collateral crime rule.” Acord v. Hedrick, 176 W.Va. 154, 157-58 , 342 S.E.2d 120, 123-24 (1986); State v. Gum, 172 W.Va. 534, 543 , 309 S.E.2d 32, 41 (1983); syl. pt. 12, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). 1993Even if the appellant was charged with arson in connection with the car, “this testimony was not used to show [his] propensity toward criminality, but rather it served to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime, and thus it is an exception to the collateral crime rule.” Acord v. Hedrick, 176 W.Va. 154, 157-58 , 342 S.E.2d 120, 123-24 (1986); State v. Gum, 172 W.Va. 534, 543 , 309 S.E.2d 32, 41 (1983); syl. pt. 12, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1990Further, in State v. Jackson, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 383 S.E.2d 79, 82 (1989), this Court recognized that: [W]here the state attempt[s] to introduce evidence of other crimes or wrongful acts on the part of a defendant to prove system, motive, intent or opportunity, as outlined in Rule [404(b) ], known as the collateral crime rule, `we have emphasized that [to be admissible, evidence of] the collateral crimes must [relate to crimes that] have occurred reasonably close in point of time to the present offense.' State v. Dolin, ___ W.Va. ___, 347 S.E.2d 208, 214 (1986). 1990Further, in State v. Jackson, 181 W.Va. 447, 450 , 383 S.E.2d 79, 82 (1989), this Court recognized that: [W]here the state attempt[s] to introduce evidence of other crimes or wrongful acts on the part of a defendant to prove system, motive, intent or opportunity, as outlined in Rule [404(b)], known as the collateral crime rule, ‘we have emphasized that [to be admissible, evidence of] the collateral crimes must [relate to crimes that] have occurred reasonably close in point of time to the present offense.’ State v. Dolin, 176 W.Va. 688 , 347 S.E.2d 208, 214 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1988Both at common law and now under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State may introduce evidence that the defendant committed other crimes for the purpose of showing motive, intent, plan, or the other factors enumerated in the rule. 5 Our traditional statement of the collateral crime rule is expressed in Syllabus Point 11 of State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974): “Subject to exceptions, it is a well-established common-law rule that in a criminal prosecution, proof which shows or tends to show that the accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes and 1988Both at common law and now under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the State may introduce evidence that the defendant committed other crimes for the purpose of showing motive, intent, plan, or the other factors enumerated in the rule. 5 Our traditional statement of the collateral crime rule is expressed in Syllabus Point 11 of State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974): “Subject to exceptions, it is a well-established common-law rule that in a criminal prosecution, proof which shows or tends to show that the accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes and | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tassellgreen2 sentences1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). 1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). | 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. Thomas
green
2 sentences1993Even if the appellant was charged with arson in connection with the car, “this testimony was not used to show [his] propensity toward criminality, but rather it served to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime, and thus it is an exception to the collateral crime rule.” Acord v. Hedrick, 176 W.Va. 154, 157-58 , 342 S.E.2d 120, 123-24 (1986); State v. Gum, 172 W.Va. 534, 543 , 309 S.E.2d 32, 41 (1983); syl. pt. 12, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). 1993Even if the appellant was charged with arson in connection with the car, “this testimony was not used to show [his] propensity toward criminality, but rather it served to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime, and thus it is an exception to the collateral crime rule.” Acord v. Hedrick, 176 W.Va. 154, 157-58 , 342 S.E.2d 120, 123-24 (1986); State v. Gum, 172 W.Va. 534, 543 , 309 S.E.2d 32, 41 (1983); syl. pt. 12, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640 , 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974). | 4 | 1986–1993 |
State v. Gargiliana
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). 1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Withrow
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). 1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). 1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). 1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). 1990See, e.g., State v. Messer, 166 W.Va. 806 , 277 S.E.2d 634 (1981) (per curiam); Syllabus Point 7, State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522 , 96 S.E.2d 913 (1957); Syllabus Point 3, State v. Gargiliana, 138 W.Va. 376 , 76 S.E.2d 265 (1953); Syllabus Point 2, State v. Evans, 136 W.Va. 1 , 66 S.E.2d 545 (1951); Syllabus Point 4, State v. Lewis, 133 W.Va. 584 , 57 S.E.2d 513 (1949). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Edward Charles L.
green
2 sentences2014While this holding was modified by this Court in State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990), to allow such evidence where the victim is a child, the decision was not modified with respect to adult victims. 10 Recognizing that the 404(b) evidence should not have been admitted to show the petitioner’s lustful disposition toward the victim, the State argues that we should extend our ruling in Edward Charles L. to adults, pointing out that such a ruling would be consistent with federal law. 11 We decline to do so, however, because as we explained in Dolin : To recognize a se 2014While this holding was modified by this Court in State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990), to allow such evidence where the victim is a child, the decision was not modified with respect to adult victims. 10 Recognizing that the 404(b) evidence should not have been admitted to show the petitioner’s lustful disposition toward the victim, the State argues that we should extend our ruling in Edward Charles L. to adults, pointing out that such a ruling would be consistent with federal law. 11 We decline to do so, however, because as we explained in Dolin : To recognize a se | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Shively
green
2 sentences1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). 1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Wallace
green
2 sentences1986This was recognized in Syllabus Point 11 of Thomas , where we said “unless such other offenses are an element of or are legally connected with the offense for which the accused is on trial.” See also State v. Wallace, 175 W.Va. 663 , 337 S.E.2d 321 (1985). 1986This was recognized in Syllabus Point 11 of Thomas , where we said "unless such other offenses are an element of or are legally connected with the offense for which the accused is on trial." See also State v. Wallace, — W.Va. —, 337 S.E.2d 321 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Curry
green
2 sentences1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). 1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). 1986See People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 , 679 P.2d 1 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 (1984) (in bank); State v. Moore, 440 So.2d 134 (La.1983); State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66 , 330 N.E.2d 720 (1975); Commonwealth v. Shively, 492 Pa. 411 , 424 A.2d 1257 (1981). | 1 | 1986–1986 |