181 Conn. App. 535 - State v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “retroactively applies to the present case because 'a rule enunciated in a case presumptively applies retroactively to pending cases'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 669 - State v. Rogers · 183 Conn. App. 623 - State v. Jackson

2. “When an improper evidentiary ruling is not constitutional in nature, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmful.... [W]hether [an improper evidentiary ruling] is harmless 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.... Most importantly, we must examine the impact of the ... evidence on the trier of fact and the result of the trial.... [T]he proper standard for determining whether an erroneous evidentiary ruling is harmless should be whether the jury's verdict was substantially swayed by the error.... Accordingly, a nonconstitutional error is harmless when an appellate court has a fair assurance that the error did not substantially affect the verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 669 - State v. Rogers

3. “was presented with two issues of first impression, specifically, whether: (1) 'a police officer needed to be qualified as an expert witness before he could be allowed to testify regarding cell phone data'; id. at 127 , 156 A.3d 506 ; and (2) 'the evidence introduced through [the police officer] was of a scientific nature such that a [ Porter hearing] was required.' ... The court answered those two questions in the affirmative, concluding that the trial court improperly admitted cell phone data and cell tower coverage maps into evidence without qualifying the police officer as an expert and conducting a Porter hearing to determine whether the officer's testimony was based on a reliable scientific methodology.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 669 - State v. Rogers