Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 W. Va. 589 - Bowman v. Leverette

169 W. Va. 589 - Bowman v. Leverette’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2008

24 state decisions

120198219902000decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Wade

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The burden is on the State of West Virginis [sic] to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. ****** The burden is on the State to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant, Robert Kopa, is not required to prove himself innocent. He is presumed by the law to be innocent of this charge and this presumption remains with him throughout the entire trial. ****** The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a defendant for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"In all cases where the unlawful killing is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and where there is nothing in the circumstances of the case to explain, qualify or palliate the action, the law presumes it to have been done with malice aforethought. And if the accused, that is the defendant, would reduce the crime below the degree of murder, the burden is upon him to rebut the inference which the law raises from the act of killing, by evidence in defense_ It means that from all the evidence in the case he must be able to satisfy you by a fair preponderance of the evidence that ... although he killed and although he killed unlawfully, if such is the case, he killed in the heat of passion upon sudden provocation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Court instructs the jury that the law is that a man is taken to intend that which he does, or which is the natural and necessary consequences of his own act; and therefore, if they believe from the evidence that Parker Lee Pendry shot and killed the deceased, Cecil Hagerman, by the deliberate use of an instrument likely to produce death, under the circumstances, then the presumption of the law, arising in absence of proof to the contrary, is that he intended the consequences that resulted from said use of said deadly instrument.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.