Bowman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We do not see a problem, as the Mathis court may have, with a victim being found able to understand the moral obligation to testify truthfully, and still being mentally defective under the statutory definition. It is not unusual for a child who is actually or mentally five years old to sufficiently understand the moral obligation to tell the truth so as to be competent to testify. Telling the truth is a basic value of our society which is drummed into the heads of children as soon as they are able to reason. The fact that such a child is competent to testify, however, is not inconsistent "with being mentally defective under section 794.011(l)(b), Florida Statutes. Unlike telling the truth, the inappropriateness of the type of sexual activity occurring in Mathis or this case is not necessarily something which is normally discussed with a person who is mentally only five years old.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Santos v. State · State v. Dudley

2. “[N]o direct evidence whatsoever was offered on the issue of whether, on the date of the alleged sexual battery, the alleged victim was suffering from “a mental disease or defect which rendered her temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct.” On appeal, the [S]tate argues that a reasonable juror might infer, from the alleged victim’s IQ and “mental and developmental age” some fifteen months before the date of the alleged sexual battery, that the alleged victim was “mentally defective” on the date of the alleged sexual battery. We disagree. No evidence was offered as to the correlation, if any, between IQ and “mental and developmental age,” and the ability to understand “the nature” of one’s “conduct.” Children having a chronological age younger than the alleged victim’s “mental and developmental age” have been found to possess a sufficient understanding of the difference between the truth and a lie, and the moral obligation to relate the former rather than the latter, so as to be competent to testify in court. In fact, in this case, the trial court concluded, we believe correctly, that the alleged victim was competent to testify. On this issue, our standard of review is whether, viewing all of the evidence and inferences fairly to be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the [S]tate, a reasonable jury might have found that the alleged victim was “mentally defective,” as that term is defined in section 794.011(l)(b), on the date of the a”

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