120 Conn. App. 330 - State v. Moulton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] person acts 'intentionally' with respect to a result when her conscious objective is to cause such result.... "[W]hat a person's intention was is usually a matter to be determined by inference. No person is able to testify that they looked into another's mind and saw therein a certain knowledge or certain purpose or intention to do harm to another. Because direct evidence of the defendant's state of mind is rarely available, intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence. The only way a jury can ordinarily determine what a person's intention was at any given time is by determining what the person's conduct was, and what the circumstances were surrounding that conduct, and from that, infer what her intention was. "To draw such an inference is the proper function of a jury, provided, of course, that the inference drawn complies with the standards for inferences as explained in connection with my instruction on circumstantial evidence. The inference is not a necessary one. You are not required to infer a particular intent from the defendant's conduct or statements, but it's an inference that you may draw if you find it is reasonable and logical. I again remind you that the burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is on the state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 176 Conn. App. 537 - State v. Reed

2. “[ t ] he jury should have been instructed to examine only whether the act of calling and causing the ringing of the telephone was harassing, and to look to the speech only for the intent in physically making the telephone call”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 176 Conn. App. 537 - State v. Reed

3. “[e]vidence of the language used in an alleged violation of the harassment statute is relevant to show the intent of the accused in making the telephone call as well as the likelihood of its causing annoyance or alarm”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 176 Conn. App. 537 - State v. Reed