Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 Conn. App. 519 - State v. Diaz

109 Conn. App. 519 - State v. Diaz’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Butler (2010), 189 Conn. App. 186 - State v. Grasso (2019)

30 state decisions

110200820102020decided

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. Golding · Schlossberg v. Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury · Koskela v. King County · State v. Fauci · State v. Saucier

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

  1. “Where ... the contraband is not found on the defendant's person, the state must proceed on the alternate theory of constructive possession, that is, possession without direct physical contact.... Where the defendant is not in exclusive possession of the [place] where the narcotics are found, it may not be inferred that [the defendant] knew of the presence of the narcotics and had control of them, unless there are other incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an inference.... [T]he state had to prove that the defendant, and not some other person, possessed a substance that was of narcotic character with knowledge both of its narcotic character and the fact that he possessed it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In short, the admissibility of a hearsay statement pursuant to § 8-6 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence is subject to a binary inquiry: (1) whether [the] statement ... was against [the declarant's] penal interest and, if so, (2) whether the statement was sufficiently trustworthy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the letter did not constitute a statement against [the declarant's] penal interest because none of the statements therein tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability for any crimes but were in the nature of a recantation of [the declarant's] prior testimony.”
    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.