State v. Osbourne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is axiomatic that it is the jury's role as the sole trier of the facts to weigh the conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 760 - State v. Raynor · 181 Conn. App. 456 - State v. Vega

2. “one hour before the defendant's standoff with [the officer], the defendant had expressed an intention and willingness to use the gun by threatening to shoot a particular '[dude],' " despite fact that threat was not directed at officer). We conclude that the evidence of this prior conduct, coupled with the circumstances surrounding the defendant's encounter with Garay, provided sufficient evidence to support a reasonable jury's finding of intent to inflict serious physical injury beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant nevertheless argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding of intent. Neither of his two primary arguments in this regard are availing. First, he argues that there is no evidence that he placed his finger on the trigger 8 or fired the gun after pointing it at Garay. The absence of those facts, however, does not preclude the jury's finding of intent to inflict serious physical injury. "Although the actual firing of a gun provides strong evidence of intent, the absence of such evidence does not automatically render the evidence insufficient .... As we have previously noted, [i]t is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Conn. App. 564 - State v. Catchings

3. “on what the [defendant] has already done and not what remains to be done.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Conn. App. 564 - State v. Catchings