State v. Annulli’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. “In analyzing the defendant's claim, we first review the trial court's evidentiary [ruling]. Our standard of review for evidentiary claims is well settled. ... We review the trial court's decision to admit [or exclude] evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law ... for an abuse of discretion. ... In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court ... reasonably [could have] conclude[d] as it did. ... If, after reviewing the trial court's evidentiary rulings, we conclude that the trial court properly excluded the proffered evidence, then the defendant's constitutional claims necessarily fail. ... If, however, we conclude that the trial court improperly excluded certain evidence, we will proceed to analyze [w]hether [the] limitations on impeachment, including cross-examination, [were] so severe as to violate [the defendant's rights under] the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Conn. App. 689 - State v. Beverley

2. “The sixth amendment to the [United States] constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to confront the witnesses against him. ... The primary interest secured by confrontation is the right to cross-examination ... and an important function of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying. ... Cross-examination to elicit facts tending to show motive, interest, bias and prejudice is a matter of right and may not be unduly restricted. ... However, [t]he [c]onfrontation [c]lause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish. ... Thus, [t]he confrontation clause does not ... suspend the rules of evidence to give the defendant the right to engage in unrestricted cross-examination. ... Only relevant evidence may be elicited through cross-examination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Conn. App. 689 - State v. Beverley

3. “In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling. ... Reversal is required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Conn. App. 689 - State v. Beverley