State v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Greene (1974), State v. Whittemore (1961)
75 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. . Trippe · State v. . Wyont · State v. . McLeod · State v. Monds · State v. . Hargrave
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The terms “carnal knowledge” and “sexual intercourse” are synonymous. There is “carnal knowledge” or “sexual intercourse” in a legal sense if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male. It is not necessary that the vagina be entered or that the hymen be ruptured; the entering of the vulva or labia is sufficient. G.S. 14-23; S. v. Monds, 130 N.C. 697 , 41 S.E. 789 ; S. v. Hargrave, 65 N.C. 466 ; S. v. Storkey, 63 N.C. 7 ; Burdick: Law of Crime, section 477; 44 Am. Jur., Rape, section 3; 52 C.J., Rape, sections 23, 24.’ S. v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374 , 61 S.E. 2d 107 ; S. v. Reeves, 235 N.C. 427 , 70 S.E. 2d 9 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The law did not require the complaining witness to use any particular form of words in stating that the defendant had carnal knowledge of her. S. v. Hodges, 61 N.C. 231 . Her testimony that the defendant had ‘intercourse’ with her and ‘raped’ her under the. circumstances delineated by her was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that there was penetration of her private parts by the phallus of the defendant. Ballew v. State, 23 Ala. A. 274, 124 S. 123; S. v. Bailly, 29 S.D. 588 , 137 N.W. 352 .” State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 376 , 61 S.E. 2d 107, 108 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ... In ruling on such motion, [motion to dismiss] the court does not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, or take into account any evidence contradicting them offered by the defense. The court merely considers the testimony favorable to the State, assumes it to be true, and determines its legal sufficiency to sustain the allegations of the indictment. Whether the testimony is true or false, and what it proves if it be true are matters for the jury. ...””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Terry · State v. Miller
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.