State v. Roy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

133 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining [whether a crime] requires proof of a general intent [or] of a specific intent, the language chosen by the legislature in enacting a particular statute is significant. When the elements of a crime consist of a description of a particular act and a mental element not specific in nature, the only issue is whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. If he did so intend, he has the requisite general * intent for culpability. When the elements of a crime include a defendant's intent to achieve some result additional to the act, the additional language distinguishes the crime from those of general intent and makes it one requiring a specific intent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Josephs · 182 Conn. App. 237 - State v. Hearl

2. “[w]hen the commission of an offense ... or some element of an offense, requires a particular mental state, such mental state is ordinarily designated in the statute defining the offense by use of the terms 'intentionally,' 'knowingly,' 'recklessly' or 'criminal negligence' "). Moreover, "[w]e are not permitted to supply statutory language that the legislature may have chosen to omit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Josephs