167 Conn. App. 281 - State v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Following a trial to a jury, the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault of public safety personnel, [one count of] possession of a narcotic substance ... and [one count of] interfering with an officer. The defendant was sentenced on each of the assault convictions to ten years * incarceration, execution suspended after seven years; the sentences were to run consecutively. The defendant's one year sentence on count seven, interfering with an officer, and five year sentence on count five, possession of a narcotic substance, were ordered to run concurrently with each other and with the assault sentences. The defendant's total effective sentence was, thus, twenty years incarceration, execution suspended after fourteen years and five years of probation.”

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

2. “A defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant's claim will fail.”

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

3. “[w]e conclude that [ State v. Brown , supra, 299 Conn. at 640 , 11 A.3d 663 ] implicitly overruled Mincewicz , and that ... where the information and bill of particulars, if any, do not separate a transaction into separate parts, the reviewing court has the obligation to determine whether the multiple convictions reasonably could have been predicated on different conduct”

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