36 Wash. App. 798 - State v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2016
22 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Boykin v. Alabama · Burks v. United States · Tibbs v. Florida
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The remaining question raised by Bowman’s assignment of error is whether there is sufficient evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State from which a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Bowman was armed with a real gun during the commission of these crimes. State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980). The State need not introduce the actual deadly weapon at trial. “The evidence is sufficient if a witness to the crime has testified to the presence of such a weapon, as happened here____ The evidence may be circumstantial; no weapon need be produced or introduced.” [State v.] Tongate, [ 93 Wash.2d 751 ] at 754, 613 P.2d [121] at 121. The record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion: Mrs. C. described the gun in detail and on cross-examination stated that “there was no question in my mind whatsoever” that it was a real gun. Further, the defendant’s threats to use the gun added additional credence to the jury’s conclusion. [A defendant’s] express verbal threat to “shoot” his victim necessarily implied that he had access to a firearm capable of killing or seriously injuring his victim. We have' previously held that a firearm is unambiguously a deadly weapon. State v. Hentz, 99 Wash.2d 538, 541 , 663 P.2d 476 (1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Metzgar“[b]ecause the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's special verdict that Bowman was armed with an actual weapon, it also establishes a fortiori that Bowman's threats were credible.”
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.