State Ex Rel. Grob v. Blair

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a defendant’s “absence at the in camera hearing constituted a denial of his right to confront as [sic] accuser secured to him by Article III, Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution”
• describing the essence of the right of confrontation as “setting a witness face-to-face with the accused” (quoting 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 334 (1965))
• “Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• \Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\
• \Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\
• “Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).