determines error in West Virginia

2023Indeed, such error will not earn the defendant a new trial if, after examining the entire record, this Court determines that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176 , 577 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2003) (“While the State may not comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent, an improper reference is subject to harmless error analysis.”).

2023Indeed, such error will not earn the defendant a new trial if, after examining the entire record, this Court determines that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176 , 577 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2003) (“While the State may not comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent, an improper reference is subject to harmless error analysis.”).

2013According to Jones, if R.M.’s statements against others were demonstrably false, the statements would fall outside the scope and reach of the rape shield statute under this Court’s opinion in State v. Quinn, 200 W.Va. 432 , 490 S.E.2d 34 (1997), and would suggest that R.M.’s statements implicating Jones were also false.

2013According to Jones, if R.M.’s statements against others were demonstrably false, the statements would fall outside the scope and reach of the rape shield statute under this Court’s opinion in State v. Quinn, 200 W.Va. 432 , 490 S.E.2d 34 (1997), and would suggest that R.M.’s statements implicating Jones were also false.

1999Rule 404(a)(3) provides in relevant part: Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: In a case charging criminal sexual misconduct, evidence of the victim’s ... prior sexual conduct with persons other than the defendant [is admissible] where the court determines at a hearing out of the presence of the jury that such evidence is specifically related to the act or acts for which the defendant is charged and is necessary to prevent manifest injustice!.] *334 Ru

1999Rule 404(a)(3) provides in relevant part: Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: In a case charging criminal sexual misconduct, evidence of the victim’s ... prior sexual conduct with persons other than the defendant [is admissible] where the court determines at a hearing out of the presence of the jury that such evidence is specifically related to the act or acts for which the defendant is charged and is necessary to prevent manifest injustice!.] *334 Ru

1997See West Virginia Rules of Evidence 404(a)(3) [1994], permitting the use of evidence of the sexual conduct of an alleged victim "where the court determines at a hearing out of the presence of the jury that such evidence is specifically related to the act or acts for which the defendant is charged and is necessary to prevent manifest injustice[.]" Cf. Tague v. Richards, 3 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir.1993) (defendant was entitled to introduce evidence regarding child's prior sexual conduct to rebut inference that defendant caused hymenal damage.) [15] A small portion of Ms. Hall's testimony as to what T.

1997See West Virginia Rules of Evidence 404(a)(3) [1994], permitting the use of evidence of the sexual conduct of an alleged victim "where the court determines at a hearing out of the presence of the jury that such evidence is specifically related to the act or acts for which the defendant is charged and is necessary to prevent manifest injustice!.]” Cf. Tague v. Richards, 3 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir.1993) (defendant was entitled to introduce evidence regarding child’s prior sexual conduct to rebut inference that defendant caused hymenal damage.) .