119 Conn. App. 581 - State v. Dickman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well settled ... that the question of intent is purely a question of fact.... The state of mind of one accused of a crime is often the most significant and, at the same time, the most elusive element of the crime charged.... Because it is practically impossible to know what someone is thinking or intending at any given moment, absent an outright declaration of intent, a person's state of mind is usually proven by circumstantial evidence.... Intent may be and usually is inferred from conduct.... [W]hether such an inference should be drawn is properly a question for the jury to decide.... Intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as the events leading to and immediately following the incident, and the jury may infer that the defendant intended the natural consequences of his actions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Conn. App. 791 - State v. Chemlen

2. “reasonably could have inferred that [Dickman] intended [the insurance company] to believe that she was [her brother-in-law's] conservator, and, thus, an [insurance] representative could discuss his claim with her. Because [Dickman] was not [her brother-in-law's] conservator, the jury could have concluded, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, that [Dickman] intended to deceive [the insurance company] by causing it to believe that she was [her brother-in-law's] conservator.”

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

3. “[a] person is guilty of forgery in the third degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another , he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument, or issues or possesses any written instrument which he knows to be forged.”

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