situation defense in West Virginia

1961That, too, is the situation at bar." In Gorton v. Doty, 57 Idaho 792 , 69 P.2d 136 , it was held that where conduct of counsel for the defendant was such as to provoke a remark by plaintiff's counsel with respect to insurance, such reference to insurance will not be ground for granting a mistrial.

1961That, too, is the situation at bar." In Gorton v. Doty, 57 Idaho 792 , 69 P.2d 136 , it was held that where conduct of counsel for the defendant was such as to provoke a remark by plaintiff's counsel with respect to insurance, such reference to insurance will not be ground for granting a mistrial.

2014In Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Barber, 211 W.Va. 358 , 566 S.E.2d 245 (2002) (per curiam), this Court addressed a situation where a hearing panel subcommittee found that a lawyer violated a Rule of Professional Conduct that had not been specifically charged.

2014In Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Barber, 211 W.Va. 358 , 566 S.E.2d 245 (2002) (per curiam), this Court addressed a situation where a hearing panel subcommittee found that a lawyer violated a Rule of Professional Conduct that had not been specifically charged.

2000In State v. McClure, 184 W.Va. 418 , 400 S.E.2d 853 (1990), this Court addressed a situation in which defense counsel had been prevented from questioning a State witness regarding suspected prejudice against the defendant.

2000In State v. McClure, 184 W.Va. 418 , 400 S.E.2d 853 (1990), this Court addressed a situation in which defense counsel had been prevented from questioning a State witness regarding suspected prejudice against the defendant.

2000The McClure Court relied upon syllabus point one of Horton v. Horton, 164 W.Va. 358 , 264 S.E.2d 160 (1980), as follows, to conclude that defense counsel had failed to preserve the issue for appellate review: If a party offers evidence to which an objection is sustained, that party, in order to preserve the rejection of the evidence as error on appeal, must place the rejected evidence on the record or disclose what the evidence would have shown, and the failure to do so prevents an appellate court from reviewing the matter on appeal.

2000The McClure Court relied upon syllabus point one of Horton v. Horton, 164 W.Va. 358 , 264 S.E.2d 160 (1980), as follows, to conclude that defense counsel had failed to preserve the issue for appellate review: If a party offers evidence to which an objection is sustained, that party, in order to preserve the rejection of the evidence as error on appeal, must place the rejected evidence on the record or disclose what the evidence would have shown, and the failure to do so prevents an appellate court from reviewing the matter on appeal.

1990However, in State v. Miller, 178 W.Va. 618 , 363 S.E.2d 504 (1987), we addressed a situation in which the factors for jury consideration discussed in Leach had been delineated in an instruction that the defendant objected to upon appeal as having been “erroneous,” “misleading and confusing.” Id. 178 W.Va. at 620 , 363 S.E.2d at 506 .

1990However, in State v. Miller, 178 W.Va. 618 , 363 S.E.2d 504 (1987), we addressed a situation in which the factors for jury consideration discussed in Leach had been delineated in an instruction that the defendant objected to upon appeal as having been “erroneous,” “misleading and confusing.” Id. 178 W.Va. at 620 , 363 S.E.2d at 506 .

1940It created a situation controlled in principle by State v. Lucas, 103 W.

1940Va. 743 , 138 S. E. 393 . *539 The third assignment of error is that the defendant was prejudiced by the action of the court in committing the prisoner to the custody of the sheriff during the trial.

1935Va. 136 , 23 S. E. 552 ), that principle is not applicable to the situation at bar, because an order granting a change of venue in nowise terminates the proceedings.

1931And in dealing with the exact question presented here, this court *276 said, through Judge Woods in Buskirk v. Musick, 100 W.