169 Conn. App. 56 - State v. Estrella J.C.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To the extent [that] a trial court's admission of evidence is based on an interpretation of the Code of Evidence, our standard of review is plenary. For example, whether a challenged statement properly may be classified as hearsay and whether a hearsay exception properly is identified are legal questions demanding plenary review.... We review the trial court's decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law, however, for an abuse of discretion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Conn. App. 55 - State v. Ezequiel R. · 181 Conn. App. 703 - State v. Abraham

2. “Admissibility of other crimes, wrongs or acts evidence is contingent on satisfying the relevancy standards and balancing test set forth in Sections 4-1 and 4-3, respectively. For other crimes, wrongs or acts evidence to be admissible, the court must determine that the evidence is probative of one or more of the enumerated purposes for which it is offered, and that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.... The purposes enumerated in subsection (c) for which other crimes, wrongs or acts evidence may be admitted are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. Neither subsection (a) nor subsection (c) precludes a court from recognizing other appropriate purposes for which other crimes, wrongs or acts evidence may be admitted, provided the evidence is not introduced to prove a person's bad character or criminal tendencies, and the probative value of its admission is not outweighed by any of the Section 4-3 balancing factors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Conn. App. 350 - State v. Santiago · 187 Conn. App. 661 - State v. Berrios

3. “[Our Supreme Court] has previously enumerated situations in which the potential prejudicial effect of relevant evidence would counsel its exclusion. Evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial: (1) where it may unnecessarily arouse the jury's emotions, hostility or sympathy; (2) where it may create distracting side issues; (3) where the evidence and counterproof will consume an inordinate amount of time; and (4) where one party is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it.... Furthermore, with respect to a trial court's ruling on a prejudicial-probative balancing test, [w]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Conn. App. 350 - State v. Santiago · 187 Conn. App. 661 - State v. Berrios