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.
7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2026“In fact, the key difference between the present sense impression exception and the excited utterance exception is that present sense impression requires contemporaneity while the central requirement of an excited utterance is that the declarant still be under the pressure of the exciting event.” State v. Phillips, 194 W. 2016Pt. 4, State v. Phillips, 194 W.Va. 569 , 461 S.E.2d 75 (1995) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Sutherland, 231 W.Va. 410 , 745 S.E.2d 448 (2013)) (“It is within a trial court’s discretion to admit an out-of-court statement under Rule 803(1), the present sense impression exception, of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence if: (1) The statement was made at the time or shortly after an event; (2) the statement describes the event; and (3) the event giving rise to the statement was within a declarant's personal knowledge.”). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Sutphingreen2 sentences2026The official comment to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) and (2) explains that the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule is based on the theory that 8 We note that the West Virginia Rules of Evidence are patterned upon the Federal Rules of Evidence, and this Court has “repeatedly recognized that when codified procedural rules or rules of evidence of West Virginia are patterned after the corresponding federal rules, federal decisions interpreting those rules are persuasive guides in the interpretation of our rules.” State v. Sutphin, 195 W. 2026Va. 551, 563 , 466 S.E.2d 402, 414 (1995). 16 the “substantial contemporaneity of [the] event and statement negate the likelihood of deliberate or conscious misrepresentation.” FED. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindseygreen2 sentences1995"The jury is the trier of the facts and `there is no presumption that they are familiar with the law.'" State v. Lindsey, 160 W.Va. 284, 291 , 233 S.E.2d 734, 739 (1977), quoting State v. Loveless, 139 W.Va. 454, 469 , 80 S.E.2d 442, 450 (1954). [1] The State was not attempting to prove that the Defendant committed adultery, or that the victim did in fact plan to leave the Defendant, and seek half their assets, but instead to prove circumstantially that she told the Defendant that, thereby giving him a motive to kill her. [2] The majority is correct in its analysis that these statements would 1995"The jury is the trier of the facts and `there is no presumption that they are familiar with the law.'" State v. Lindsey, 160 W.Va. 284, 291 , 233 S.E.2d 734, 739 (1977), quoting State v. Loveless, 139 W.Va. 454, 469 , 80 S.E.2d 442, 450 (1954). [1] The State was not attempting to prove that the Defendant committed adultery, or that the victim did in fact plan to leave the Defendant, and seek half their assets, but instead to prove circumstantially that she told the Defendant that, thereby giving him a motive to kill her. [2] The majority is correct in its analysis that these statements would | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lovelessgreen2 sentences1995"The jury is the trier of the facts and `there is no presumption that they are familiar with the law.'" State v. Lindsey, 160 W.Va. 284, 291 , 233 S.E.2d 734, 739 (1977), quoting State v. Loveless, 139 W.Va. 454, 469 , 80 S.E.2d 442, 450 (1954). [1] The State was not attempting to prove that the Defendant committed adultery, or that the victim did in fact plan to leave the Defendant, and seek half their assets, but instead to prove circumstantially that she told the Defendant that, thereby giving him a motive to kill her. [2] The majority is correct in its analysis that these statements would 1995"The jury is the trier of the facts and `there is no presumption that they are familiar with the law.'" State v. Lindsey, 160 W.Va. 284, 291 , 233 S.E.2d 734, 739 (1977), quoting State v. Loveless, 139 W.Va. 454, 469 , 80 S.E.2d 442, 450 (1954). [1] The State was not attempting to prove that the Defendant committed adultery, or that the victim did in fact plan to leave the Defendant, and seek half their assets, but instead to prove circumstantially that she told the Defendant that, thereby giving him a motive to kill her. [2] The majority is correct in its analysis that these statements would | 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 of West Virginia v. Timothy Ray Sutherland
green
2 sentences2016Pt. 4, State v. Phillips, 194 W.Va. 569 , 461 S.E.2d 75 (1995) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Sutherland, 231 W.Va. 410 , 745 S.E.2d 448 (2013)) (“It is within a trial court’s discretion to admit an out-of-court statement under Rule 803(1), the present sense impression exception, of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence if: (1) The statement was made at the time or shortly after an event; (2) the statement describes the event; and (3) the event giving rise to the statement was within a declarant's personal knowledge.”). 2016Pt. 4, State v. Phillips, 194 W.Va. 569 , 461 S.E.2d 75 (1995) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Sutherland, 231 W.Va. 410 , 745 S.E.2d 448 (2013)) (“It is within a trial court’s discretion to admit an out-of-court statement under Rule 803(1), the present sense impression exception, of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence if: (1) The statement was made at the time or shortly after an event; (2) the statement describes the event; and (3) the event giving rise to the statement was within a declarant's personal knowledge.”). | 4 | 2014–2026 |
Booth v. State
green
2 sentences1995In Booth, 306 Md. at 321-22 , 508 A.2d at 980 , quoting McCormick on Evidence § 298 at 860 (3rd ed. E. 1995In Booth, 306 Md. at 321-22 , 508 A.2d at 980 , quoting McCormick on Evidence § 298 at 860 (3rd ed. E. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. Martin Benjamin, Bernard Howard and Milton Z. Mende
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Gilbert Montemayor Palos v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jesus Enrique Noriega v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Goldberg v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Howard v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Thibodeau
green
2 sentences1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. 1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Martin-Trigona v. State Board of Law Examiners
neutral
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Mensen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Haag v. Jordan
neutral
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lombardozzi v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Board of Education v. King
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Palos v. United States, 416 F.2d 438 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 980 , 90 S.Ct. 1107 , 25 L.Ed.2d 391 (1970); United States v. Benjamin, 328 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953 , 84 S.Ct. 1631 , 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); United States v. Noriega, 437 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 908 , 91 S.Ct. 1380 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971); State v. Thibodeau, 89 S.D. 404 , 233 N.W.2d 326 (1975). 4 .Some courts have admitted such statements, where there is no exciting event, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.