6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2011 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. Adkinsgreen2 sentences1985As in State v. Adkins, 170 W.Va. at 54, 289 S.E.2d at 728 , where the defendant’s full scale intelligence quotient score was 49, and in State v. Cheshire, 173 W.Va. at 127, 313 S.E.2d at 65 , where the defendant’s scores were 59, 68, and 74, we conclude that the trial judge’s ruling on this question, that the appellant’s below average intelligence did not impair his capacity to understand the meaning and effect of his confession, was not clearly against the weight of the evidence presented or plainly wrong. • V The appellant assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to permit the testimony of 1985As in State v. Adkins, 170 W.Va. at 54, 289 S.E.2d at 728 , where the defendant’s full scale intelligence quotient score was 49, and in State v. Cheshire, 173 W.Va. at 127, 313 S.E.2d at 65 , where the defendant’s scores were 59, 68, and 74, we conclude that the trial judge’s ruling on this question, that the appellant’s below average intelligence did not impair his capacity to understand the meaning and effect of his confession, was not clearly against the weight of the evidence presented or plainly wrong. • V The appellant assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to permit the testimony of | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cheshiregreen2 sentences1985As in State v. Adkins, 170 W.Va. at 54, 289 S.E.2d at 728 , where the defendant’s full scale intelligence quotient score was 49, and in State v. Cheshire, 173 W.Va. at 127, 313 S.E.2d at 65 , where the defendant’s scores were 59, 68, and 74, we conclude that the trial judge’s ruling on this question, that the appellant’s below average intelligence did not impair his capacity to understand the meaning and effect of his confession, was not clearly against the weight of the evidence presented or plainly wrong. • V The appellant assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to permit the testimony of 1985As in State v. Adkins, 170 W.Va. at 54, 289 S.E.2d at 728 , where the defendant’s full scale intelligence quotient score was 49, and in State v. Cheshire, 173 W.Va. at 127, 313 S.E.2d at 65 , where the defendant’s scores were 59, 68, and 74, we conclude that the trial judge’s ruling on this question, that the appellant’s below average intelligence did not impair his capacity to understand the meaning and effect of his confession, was not clearly against the weight of the evidence presented or plainly wrong. • V The appellant assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to permit the testimony of | 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. Head
green
2 sentences2011The following standard of review was enunciated in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298 , 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996), and will be utilized by this Court: In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court concerning an order on a motion made under Rule 35 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, we apply a three-pronged standard of review. 2011The following standard of review was enunciated in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298 , 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996), and will be utilized by this Court: In reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a circuit court concerning an order on a motion made under Rule 35 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, we apply a three-pronged standard of review. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Derr
green
2 sentences1996Our appellate review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested instruction is deferential and constitutes reversible error if “(1) the instruction is a correct statement of the law; (2) it is not substantially covered in the charge actually given to the jury; and (3) it concerns an important point in the trial so that the failure to give it seriously impairs a defendant’s ability to effectively present a given defense.” Syllabus Point 11, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165 , 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994). 1996Our appellate review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested instruction is deferential and constitutes reversible error if “(1) the instruction is a correct statement of the law; (2) it is not substantially covered in the charge actually given to the jury; and (3) it concerns an important point in the trial so that the failure to give it seriously impairs a defendant’s ability to effectively present a given defense.” Syllabus Point 11, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165 , 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co.
green
2 sentences1988We believe that the trial court arrived at the correct amount for the appellant’s liability. 9 This Court adopted comparative negligence in Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332 , 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979). 1988We believe that the trial court arrived at the correct amount for the appellant’s liability. 9 This Court adopted comparative negligence in Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332 , 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Cokeley
green
2 sentences1982“Instructions that are repetitious ... should not be given to the jury by the trial court.” Syl. pt. 7, State v. Cokeley, 159 W.Va. 664 , 226 S.E.2d 40 (1976). 1982"Instructions that are repetitious ... should not be given to the jury by the trial court." Syl. pt. 7, State v. Cokeley, 226 S.E.2d 40 (W.Va.1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Wright
green
2 sentences1982The trial judge gave the following instruction: “The Court instructs the jury that the jury may infer that a person intends to do that which he does, or which is the natural or necessary consequence of his act.” This Court specifically upheld this instruction in State v. Wright, 162 W.Va. 332 , 249 S.E.2d 519 (1978). 1982The trial judge gave the following instruction: "The Court instructs the jury that the jury may infer that a person intends to do that which he does, or which is the natural or necessary consequence of his act." This Court specifically upheld this instruction in State v. Wright, 249 S.E.2d 519 (W.Va.1978). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. O'CONNELL
green
2 sentences1981That instruction reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “The Court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Cheryl Haddox, used a deadly or dangerous weapon, that is, a knife, without any or upon slight provocation, then the law of the State of West Virginia is that such act gives rise to a presumption that the accused, by the use of such deadly and dangerous weapon, intended the natural and probable consequences of her act.” Relying upon this Court’s decision in State v. O’Connell, 163 W.Va. 366 , 256 S.E.2d 429 (1979), the appellan 1981That instruction reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “The Court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Cheryl Haddox, used a deadly or dangerous weapon, that is, a knife, without any or upon slight provocation, then the law of the State of West Virginia is that such act gives rise to a presumption that the accused, by the use of such deadly and dangerous weapon, intended the natural and probable consequences of her act.” Relying upon this Court’s decision in State v. O’Connell, 163 W.Va. 366 , 256 S.E.2d 429 (1979), the appellan | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.