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.
6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2019 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. Crowdergreen2 sentences2017In syllabus point seven of State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137 , 298 S.E.2d 110 (1982), we explained that “[t]he variance between the indictment and the proof is considered material where the variance misleads the defendant in presenting his defense to the charge and exposes him to the danger of being put in jeopardy again for the same offense.” See also State v. Crowder, 146 W.Va. 810, 836 , 123 S.E.2d 42, 57 (1961). 2017In syllabus point seven of State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137 , 298 S.E.2d 110 (1982), we explained that “[t]he variance between the indictment and the proof is considered material where the variance misleads the defendant in presenting his defense to the charge and exposes him to the danger of being put in jeopardy again for the same offense.” See also State v. Crowder, 146 W.Va. 810, 836 , 123 S.E.2d 42, 57 (1961). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences1982See State v. Crowder, 146 W.Va. 810 , 123 S.E.2d 42 (1961); State v. Nelson, 121 W.Va. 310 , 3 S.E.2d 530 (1939). 1982See State v. Crowder, 146 W.Va. 810 , 123 S.E.2d 42 (1961); State v. Nelson, 121 W.Va. 310 , 3 S.E.2d 530 (1939). | 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. Fairchild
green
2 sentences2019“The variance between the indictment and the proof is considered material where the variance misleads the defendant in presenting his defense to the charge and exposes him to the danger of being put in jeopardy again for the same offense.” Syllabus Point 7, State v. Fairchild, 171 W. 2017In syllabus point seven of State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137 , 298 S.E.2d 110 (1982), we explained that “[t]he variance between the indictment and the proof is considered material where the variance misleads the defendant in presenting his defense to the charge and exposes him to the danger of being put in jeopardy again for the same offense.” See also State v. Crowder, 146 W.Va. 810, 836 , 123 S.E.2d 42, 57 (1961). | 5 | 1999–2019 |
State v. Corra
green
2 sentences2017In similar vein, this Court held in pertinent part of syllabus point six of State v. Corra, 223 W.Va. 573 , 678 S.E.2d 306 (2009): “If the proof adduced at trial differs from the allegations in an indictment, it must be determined whether the difference is a variance or an actual or a constructive amendment to the indictment.” Where a defendant is “not misled in any sense, is not subjected to any added burden of proof, and is not otherwise prejudiced, then the difference between the proof adduced at trial and the indictment is a variance which does not usurp the traditional safeguards of the g 2017In similar vein, this Court held in pertinent part of syllabus point six of State v. Corra, 223 W.Va. 573 , 678 S.E.2d 306 (2009): “If the proof adduced at trial differs from the allegations in an indictment, it must be determined whether the difference is a variance or an actual or a constructive amendment to the indictment.” Where a defendant is “not misled in any sense, is not subjected to any added burden of proof, and is not otherwise prejudiced, then the difference between the proof adduced at trial and the indictment is a variance which does not usurp the traditional safeguards of the g | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Chaffin
green
2 sentences2000In syllabus point four of State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264 , 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972), we explained: “A variance in the pleading and the proof with regard to the time of the commission of a crime does not constitute prejudicial error where time is not of the essence of the crime charged.” In syllabus point seven of State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137 , 298 S.E.2d 110 (1982), we explained that “[t]he variance between the indictment and the proof is considered material where the variance misleads the defendant in presenting his defense to the charge and exposes him to the danger of being put in jeopar 2000In syllabus point four of State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264 , 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972), we explained: “A variance in the pleading and the proof with regard to the time of the commission of a crime does not constitute prejudicial error where time is not of the essence of the crime charged.” In syllabus point seven of State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137 , 298 S.E.2d 110 (1982), we explained that “[t]he variance between the indictment and the proof is considered material where the variance misleads the defendant in presenting his defense to the charge and exposes him to the danger of being put in jeopar | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State Ex Rel. State v. Reed
green
2 sentences2000State v. Reed, 204 W.Va. 520 , 514 S.E.2d 171 (1999). 2000State v. Reed, 204 W.Va. 520 , 514 S.E.2d 171 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.