# State v. Wilson

> West Virginia Supreme Court · August 1, 1974 · 157 W. Va. 1036

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9607139

## Case

- **Full name:** State of West Virginia v. Chester Wilson
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 1, 1974
- **Citations:** 157 W. Va. 1036; 207 S.E.2d 174
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Neely
- **Judges:** Berry, Neely
- **Cited by:** 56 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9607139

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no error in the refusal to ask jurors if they believed defendant to be guilty because an indictment was returned against him, but in any event, any error was cured by a proper instruction

## Opinion text

Neely, Justice,
dissents:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with regard to the cavalier treatment of the defendant’s rights to a meaningful voir dire examination. While I should not like to see West Virginia become so concerned with voir dire examinations as to assign them the unreasonable importance which they have assumed in some other states; nevertheless, I feel that a criminal defendant is entitled to ask each individual juror any reasonable question under sufficiently impartial circumstances as to elicit a responsive and meaningful answer.
Accordingly, I believe that this case should have begun to develop appropriate detailed standards for voir dire examinations in order to establish practical guidelines by which this Court can test the trial courts’ discretion.
I further respectfully dissent from the majority’s treatment of the effect of numerous errors as being harmless. The correct rule is stated in syllabus point 5 of State v. Smith, 156 W.Va. 385 , 193 S.E.2d 550 (1972) which says:
“Where the record of a criminal trial shows that the cumulative effect' of numerous errors committed during the trial prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial, his conviction should be set aside, even though any one of such errors standing alone would be harmless error.”
Therefore, I would reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
I am authorized to say that Justice Haden joins with me in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9607139. Public record. Not legal advice.