text rule in West Virginia

2022Therefore, “both approaches require adequate procedural safeguards; absent such precautions at the trial court level, the text of the rule supports reversal.” Id. 13 Evaluating whether the post-submission juror substitution was prejudicial requires an examination of the record and a consideration of what precautionary measures were used by the trial court to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

2022Other state courts have held that the presumption of prejudice can only be rebutted by “a showing that the trial court took extraordinary precautions to ensure that the defendant would not be prejudiced and that under the circumstances of the case, the precautions were adequate to achieve that result.” Burnette, 775 P.2d at 590 .

2020In syllabus point two of In re Guardianship of A.C., 240 W.Va. 23 , 807 S.E.2d 271 (2017), this Court further explained: “‘“The exercise of discretion by a trial court in awarding custody of a minor child will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused; however, where the trial court’s ruling does not reflect a discretionary decision but is based upon an erroneous application of the law and is clearly wrong, the ruling will be reversed on appeal.” Syllabus point 2, Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 158 W.Va. 964 , 216 S.E.2d 570 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as

2020This Court has held that “[q]uestions relating to . . . custody of the children are within the sound discretion of the court and its action with respect to such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused.” Syl., 6 The text of this rule is set forth herein. 3 in part, Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W.Va. 514 , 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977).

2020This Court has held that “[q]uestions relating to . . . custody of the children are within the sound discretion of the court and its action with respect to such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused.” Syl., 6 The text of this rule is set forth herein. 3 in part, Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W.Va. 514 , 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977).

2020In syllabus point two of In re Guardianship of A.C., 240 W.Va. 23 , 807 S.E.2d 271 (2017), this Court further explained: “‘“The exercise of discretion by a trial court in awarding custody of a minor child will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused; however, where the trial court’s ruling does not reflect a discretionary decision but is based upon an erroneous application of the law and is clearly wrong, the ruling will be reversed on appeal.” Syllabus point 2, Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 158 W.Va. 964 , 216 S.E.2d 570 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as

2020In syllabus point two of In re Guardianship of A.C., 240 W.Va. 23 , 807 S.E.2d 271 (2017), this Court further explained: “‘“The exercise of discretion by a trial court in awarding custody of a minor child will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused; however, where the trial court’s ruling does not reflect a discretionary decision but is based upon an erroneous application of the law and is clearly wrong, the ruling will be reversed on appeal.” Syllabus point 2, Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 158 W.Va. 964 , 216 S.E.2d 570 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as

2020In syllabus point two of In re Guardianship of A.C., 240 W.Va. 23 , 807 S.E.2d 271 (2017), this Court further explained: “‘“The exercise of discretion by a trial court in awarding custody of a minor child will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused; however, where the trial court’s ruling does not reflect a discretionary decision but is based upon an erroneous application of the law and is clearly wrong, the ruling will be reversed on appeal.” Syllabus point 2, Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 158 W.Va. 964 , 216 S.E.2d 570 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as

2020In syllabus point two of In re Guardianship of A.C., 240 W.Va. 23 , 807 S.E.2d 271 (2017), this Court further explained: “‘“The exercise of discretion by a trial court in awarding custody of a minor child will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused; however, where the trial court’s ruling does not reflect a discretionary decision but is based upon an erroneous application of the law and is clearly wrong, the ruling will be reversed on appeal.” Syllabus point 2, Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 158 W.Va. 964 , 216 S.E.2d 570 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as

1994The instruction considered in Yates, 500 U.S. at 397 , 111 S.Ct. at 1889-90 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 444-45 , states, in relevant part: " 'Malice may also be implied as where, although no expressed intention to kill was proved by direct evidence, it is indirectly and necessarily inferred from facts and circumstances which are, themselves, proved.

1994The instruction considered in Yates, 500 U.S. at 397 , 111 S.Ct. at 1889-90 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 444-45 , states, in relevant part: " 'Malice may also be implied as where, although no expressed intention to kill was proved by direct evidence, it is indirectly and necessarily inferred from facts and circumstances which are, themselves, proved.

1982Va. 525 , 121 S.E. 726 (1924). 5 The text of the instruction is: “You, the jury, are instructed that to constitute a wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, it is not necessary that the intention to kill should exist for any particular length of time prior to the actual killing; it is only necessary that such intention should have come into existence for the first time at the time of the killing or at any moment previously.” 6 In State v. Dodds, 54 W.

1981Thus we stated in the Natural Gas Pipeline Co. Case that ‘regulation does not insure that the business shall produce net revenues.’ 315 US p 590, 86 L Ed 1052 , 62 S Ct 736 .

1922One cited ease, that of Schramm v. People, 220 Ill. 16 , is supposed to be contrary to the doctrine of the text.

1908The cases there cited which I think particularly applicable to the doctrine of the text are Cawley v. Costello, 15 Hun. 303 ; Security & Trust Co. v. Storm, 81 Hun. 33 ; McMoran v. Lange, 48 N. Y.

1908The cases there cited which I think particularly applicable to the doctrine of the text are Cawley v. Costello, 15 Hun. 303 ; Security & Trust Co. v. Storm, 81 Hun. 33 ; McMoran v. Lange, 48 N. Y.

1908Supp. 1000 ; Twogood v. Coppers, 9 Ia. 415 .