129 W. Va. 575 - State v. Toler’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably 151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric (1966), State v. Kirtley (1979)
36 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Clifford · 123 W. Va. 569 - State v. Gunter · 117 W. Va. 217 - State v. Bowles · 104 W. Va. 1 - State v. McMillion · 81 W. Va. 522 - State v. Snider
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Glen N. Bowman, Sr., shot, wounded and killed Thomas Freeman Hart, and that he, the said Glen N. Bowman, Sr., relies upon self-defense to excuse him from such act, the burden of showing such excuse is on the defendant, and to avail him of such defense he must prove to the satisfaction of the jury by a preponderance of the evidence, or it must appear from all the evidence and circumstances in the case that at the time he shot and wounded the said Thomas Freeman Hart he believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of the said Thomas Freeman Hart, for the purpose of protecting himself from such apparent danger, believing and having reasonable grounds to believe at the time he shot and wounded the said Thomas Freeman Hart that said shooting and wounding was necessary in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm at the hands of the said Thomas Freeman Hart, but the Court instructs the jury that the defendant acted at his peril, as the jury must pass upon all his actions in the premises, from all the facts and circumstances of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant stabbed and killed David Lee Hill, and that he, the said defendant, relies upon self defense to excuse him from such an act, the burden of showing such excuse is on the defendant, and to avail himself of such defense he must prove to the satisfaction of the jury by preponderance of the evidence, or it must appear from all the evidence and circumstances in the case that at the time he killed the said David Lee Hill, he believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of the said David Lee Hill and that he killed the said David Lee Hill for the purpose of protecting himself from such apparent danger, believing and having reasonable grounds to believe at the time he killed the said David Lee Hill, that said killing was necessary in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm at the hands of the said David Lee Hill, but the Court instructs the jury that the defendant acted at his peril, as the jury must pass upon his actions in the premises from all the facts and circumstances in the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kirtley“It is peculiarly within the province of the jury to weigh the evidence in criminal cases, and every element thereof, including that of self-defense. The verdict of the jury in a criminal case will not be set aside unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and it will not be set aside merely because there are conflicts in the evidence. A multitude of cases which sustain these propositions could be cited, but the following will suffice: State v. McMillion, supra [ 104 W.Va. 1 , 138 S.E. 732 ]; State v. Magdich, 105 W.Va. 585 , 143 S.E. 348 ; State v. Hamrick, 112 W.Va. 157 , 163 S.E. 868 ; State v. Bowles, supra [ 117 W.Va. 217 , 185 S.E. 205 ]; State v. DeBoard, supra [ 119 W.Va. 396 , 194 S.E. 349 ]; and State v. Gunter, supra [ 123 W.Va. 569 , 17 S.E.2d 46 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.