State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction we apply a two-part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [finder of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... [I]n viewing evidence which could yield contrary inferences, the jury is not barred from drawing those inferences consistent with guilt and is not required to draw only those inferences consistent with innocence. The rule is that the jury's function is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Conn. App. 74 - State v. Guerrera · 187 Conn. App. 20 - State v. Stephenson

2. “A person is guilty of tampering with ... physical evidence if, believing that an official proceeding is pending ... he ... [a]lters, destroys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such [official] proceeding ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Conn. App. 74 - State v. Guerrera · 187 Conn. App. 20 - State v. Stephenson

3. “He'll further testify ... that his involvement with Costa regarding the ... [city construction] project-he'll further testify concerning his decision to get [the director of capital projects] involved in the project. He'll testify as to the project's delay, and that it was an important project to him for many reasons. Once it was-it was a project to benefit the Latino community, of which he was obviously a part and a leader, and also a source of pride to be able to develop something that had not been developed over the years by any predecessor mayors.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Perez