West Virginia Supreme Court· 10/11/1996

State v. Blake

Citations

478 S.E.2d 550
197 W. Va. 700
1996 W. Va. LEXIS 154

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that “we are obligated to reverse where the improper exclusion of evidence places the underlying fairness of the entire trial in doubt or where the exclusion affects the substantial rights of the defendant”
noting that one of the reasons for requiring offers of proof under Rule 103(a)(2) is to \aid the reviewing court in deciding whether the alleged error was of such magnitude that it was prejudicial to the substantial rights\ of the proponent
“[B]ecause Neuman clarified applicable procedural law only, and not substantive or constitutional law, it should be given prospective application only.”
“a conviction should not be reversed if we conclude the error was harmless or unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.”
“The criteria to be used in deciding the retroactivity of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure are: (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on old standards, and (c
“Assessments of harmless error are necessarily content-specific.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cleckley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

58 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.