179 Conn. App. 831 - State v. Robert S.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we apply a two-part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether [on the basis of] the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the jury reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .... In evaluating evidence, the trier of fact is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant's innocence .... The trier may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical .... This does not require that each subordinate conclusion established by or inferred from the evidence, or even from other inferences, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt ... because this court has held that a jury's factual inferences that support a guilty verdict need only be reasonable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 54 - State v. Smith

2. “proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt ... nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the trier, would have resulted in an acquittal.... Furthermore, [i]n [our] process of review, it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct.... It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence.... Indeed, direct evidence of the accused's state of mind is rarely available.... Therefore, intent is often inferred from conduct ... and from the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence and the rational inferences drawn therefrom.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 188 Conn. App. 532 - State v. Dawson

3. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, a court considers whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a guilty verdict .... In doing so, the court does not sit as a [seventh] juror who may cast a vote against the verdict based upon our feeling that some doubt of guilt is shown by the cold printed record .... [It] cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the jury if there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict .... Thus, a court will not reweigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility in determining whether the evidence was sufficient.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 54 - State v. Smith