State v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably State v. Jones (1984), State v. Fleming (1986)
2 district · 123 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Cupp v. Naughten · Patterson v. New York
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the intent to commit the crime charged. The defendant here was charged with accessory to attempted robbery. The statutes governing that crime are [§§] 53a-8, 53a-49 (a) (2), and 53a-134 (a) (2). The accessory statute, § 53a-8, sets forth the element of intent as a twofold requirement: that the accessory have the intent to aid the principal and that in so aiding he intend to commit the offense with which he is charged.... The criminal attempt statute, § 53a-49 (a) (2), also has as an element the intent to commit the crime attempted. Finally, § 53a-134 (a) (2), robbery in the first degree, requires as an element of the crime the intent of the defendant to deprive another of property or to appropriate it to himself or a third person. See General Statutes §§ 53a-133 and 53a-119.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a jury instruction on the element of intent that is worded in terms of a `presumption' and not of an `inference' without a clear instruction on the legal effect of the presumption is unconstitutional.... [Further,] the impact upon the minds of a jury of such an instruction may be either to establish the defendant's intent as a conclusion, or to shift the burden of proof on the element of intent to the defendant.... [E]ven an instruction on intent that does not amount to a conclusive presumption still would be unconstitutional, if the charge shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Servello“[a] person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of mental state required for commission of the crime, he ... intentionally does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.