gave instruction in West Virginia

2016Va. 33 , 253 S.E.2d 555 (1979), the trial court gave the standard instruction that the jury must not consider the defendant’s failure to testify as evidence of guilt.

1996In Derr, 192 W.Va. at 175 , 451 S.E.2d at 741 , in ruling that the trial court had not abused its discretion, we stated: “The trial court gave defense counsel an adequate opportunity to address his concern with regard to the media coverage, but counsel choose not to pursue it.

1996In Derr, 192 W.Va. at 175 , 451 S.E.2d at 741 , in ruling that the trial court had not abused its discretion, we stated: “The trial court gave defense counsel an adequate opportunity to address his concern with regard to the media coverage, but counsel choose not to pursue it.

1994As we stated in Syllabus Point 4 of State v. Peacher, 167 W.Va. 640 , 280 S.E.2d 559 (1981): “The right to a trial by an impartial, objective jury in a criminal case is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution.

1986“In any case where the defendant relies upon the defense of insanity, the defendant is entitled to any instruction which advises the jury about the further disposition of the defendant in the event of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity which correctly states the law.” Part syl. pt. 2, State v. Nuckolls, 166 W.Va. 259 , 273 S.E.2d 87 (1980).

1986“In any case where the defendant relies upon the defense of insanity, the defendant is entitled to any instruction which advises the jury about the further disposition of the defendant in the event of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity which correctly states the law.” Part syl. pt. 2, State v. Nuckolls, 166 W.Va. 259 , 273 S.E.2d 87 (1980).

1985In State v. Hodges, 172 W.Va. 322 , 305 S.E.2d 278 (1983), the Court specifically held, in syllabus point 6, that: The absence of a license is an element of the crime of carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon without a license and the burden of proof as to this element must be borne by the State.

1985In State v. Hodges, 172 W.Va. 322 , 305 S.E.2d 278 (1983), the Court specifically held, in syllabus point 6, that: The absence of a license is an element of the crime of carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon without a license and the burden of proof as to this element must be borne by the State.

1891If it had been shown in evidence that the defendant was acting under a State license at the time he received the order for the two gallons of alcohol, the instruction would doubtless have been objectionable; or if it had been shown that the defendant was a licensed druggist, and said sale was made for mechanical or scientific purposes, or upon the written prescription of a practicing physician in good standing in his profession, and not of intemperate habits, in accordance with the requirements of the statute, it would have been proper to reject said instruction, as we find it has been held by