disclosure requirement in West Virginia

2016Petitioner’s fifth counsel-asserted assignment of error is that the State failed to disclose information about the Virginia State Police’s confidential informant, and he characterizes this failure as a violation of the disclosure requirement of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).3 Before the Court would accept this characterization, however, we must find the following: “(1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the defendant as exculpatory or impeachment evidence; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently

2016Petitioner’s fifth counsel-asserted assignment of error is that the State failed to disclose information about the Virginia State Police’s confidential informant, and he characterizes this failure as a violation of the disclosure requirement of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).3 Before the Court would accept this characterization, however, we must find the following: “(1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the defendant as exculpatory or impeachment evidence; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently

2021Pt. 5, State v. Starr, 158 W.

2016Pt. 2, in part, State v. Youngblood, 221 W.

2007However, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Youngblood v. West Virginia, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2188 , 165 L.Ed.2d 269 (2006), vacated the judgment of the majority, and remanded the case for consideration of whether the State's failure to turn over an evidentiary *122 note violated the disclosure requirement of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

2007However, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Youngblood v. West Virginia, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2188 , 165 L.Ed.2d 269 (2006), vacated the judgment of the majority, and remanded the case for consideration of whether the State's failure to turn over an evidentiary *122 note violated the disclosure requirement of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

2007In resolving these three issues we do not believe that this Court is precluded from also considering the issues on independent State constitutional grounds under our decision in State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191 , 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982).

2007In resolving these three issues we do not believe that this Court is precluded from also considering the issues on independent State constitutional grounds under our decision in State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191 , 286 S.E.2d 402 (1982).

2002These conditions are: (1) "the creditor has reason to believe” that the facts materially increase the surety’s risk "beyond that which the surety intends to assume;” (2) the creditor "has reason to believe that the facts are unknown to the surety;” and (3) the creditor "has a reasonable opportunity to communicate the facts to the surety.” Id. at syl. pt. 3, 437 S.E.2d 271 .

2002These conditions are: (1) "the creditor has reason to believe" that the facts materially increase the surety's risk "beyond that which the surety intends to assume;" (2) the creditor "has reason to believe that the facts are unknown to the surety;" and (3) the creditor "has a reasonable opportunity to communicate the facts to the surety." Id. at syl. pt. 3, 437 S.E.2d 271 .

1983The Court concluded that the statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 9 See also Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 , 96 S.Ct. 1178 , 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976).

1983The Court concluded that the statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 9 See also Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 , 96 S.Ct. 1178 , 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976).

1914“A person contracting as agent will be personally responsible, where, at the time of making the contract, he does not disclose his agency; and in such case the principal is also responsible.” Poole & Co. v. Rice, 9 W.