Bowman v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

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

1. “[a]n appellate court does not 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190 , 193, 677 S.E.2d 280 , 282 (2009) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ). "Rather, the relevant question is whether ' any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Id. (citation omitted). 12 This deferential appellate standard "applies not only to findings of fact, but also to any reasonable and justified inferences the fact-finder may have drawn from the facts proved.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vasquez v. Commonwealth · Pijor v. Commonwealth

2. “we review factfinding with the highest degree of appellate deference.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vasquez v. Commonwealth · Pijor v. Commonwealth

3. “'Rather, the relevant question is,' upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 'whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pijor v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Lambert