172 Conn. App. 810 - State v. Toro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]o the extent that we assume impropriety in the trial court's evidentiary [rulings], [w]hen an improper evidentiary ruling is not constitutional in nature, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmful.... [W]hether [the improper admission of a witness' testimony] is harm[ful] in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, such as the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.... [T]he proper standard for determining whether an erroneous evidentiary ruling is harm[ful] should be whether the jury's verdict was substantially swayed by the error.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 623 - State v. Jackson · 179 Conn. App. 878 - State v. Bobe

2. “[A] nonconstitutional error is harmless when an appellate court has a fair assurance that the error did not substantially affect the verdict.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 623 - State v. Jackson · 179 Conn. App. 878 - State v. Bobe

3. “Our Supreme Court has identified four factors relevant to determining whether the admission of otherwise probative evidence is unduly prejudicial. These are: (1) where the facts offered may unduly arouse the [jurors'] emotions, hostility or sympathy, (2) where the proof and answering evidence it provokes may create a side issue that will unduly distract the jury from the main issues, (3) where the evidence offered and the counterproof will consume an undue amount of time, and (4) where the defendant, having no reasonable ground to anticipate the evidence, is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it. ... State v. Hill , 307 Conn. 689 , 698, 59 A.3d 196 (2013).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Conn. App. 22 - State v. Franklin