State v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(As to Count_, if) (If) you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that (on) (on or about) [date ], in the (City) (County) of_, State of Missouri, the defendant engaged in [Describe conduct.] with [Identify child.], and Second, that this conduct constituted (sexual intercourse) (deviate sexual intercourse) (sexual contact),[ 10 ] and Third, that [Identify child.] was then less than seventeen years of age, and Fourth, that the defendant was the (parent) (guardian) ([Describe other relationship in which the defendant was charged with the care and custody of the child.]) of the child, and Fifth, that the defendant acted knowingly with respect to the facts and circumstances submitted in this instruction, [[Image here]] then you will find the defendant guilty (under Count_) of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. [[Image here]]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wadel

2. “Rule 30.20 grants us authority to consider “plain errors affecting substantial rights ... when [we find] that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted” from the error. Under plain error review, we must first examine the record to determine whether or not the appellant’s claim is one that facially shows grounds for believing that an error resulted in manifest injustice to him. State v. D.W.N., 290 S.W.3d 814, 817 (Mo.App. W.D.2009). If this review establishes grounds for believing that an error occurred and that the error resulted in manifest injustice, then we review the record to determine whether or not the error actually resulted in manifest injustice. Id. In the absence of such a determination, we decline to exercise our discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20. Id. We use this rule sparingly and will not use it to review every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for review. Id. ‘Plain error is evident, obvious, and clear error.’ ” Id. (quotation omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Davies