22 Conn. App. 199 - State v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the defendant was incompetent, and, second, it found that there was no substantial probability that his competency would be regained. Given these findings, under this statutory scheme for determining competency the court's subsequent action regarding the defendant's placement alternatives was controlled by General Statutes 54-56d (g), which directed the court to follow the procedure set forth in subsection (m) of this section. Subsection (m) is a virtual blueprint for what the court may order when an incompetent defendant is found to have no substantial probability of regaining his competency. The court here acted improperly in framing a release order that, by including a condition thereupon, exceeded the boundaries of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Morales, No. Cr01 016 98 05 (Apr. 5, 2002)

2. “The procedures for determining competency and the placement alternatives available if a defendant is found incompetent are governed by General Statutes 54-56d . This statute sets forth with punctilious detail the actions to be taken by a court in competency matters. Once the court makes certain findings regarding the defendant's competency and his chances for restoration; see General Statutes 54-56d (f); the statute contains carefully drawn procedures that dictate precisely what the court may order with respect to the disposition of incompetent defendants.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Morales, No. Cr01 016 98 05 (Apr. 5, 2002)

3. “On October 30, 1987, the defendant allegedly shot two victims. One died later that day from a gunshot wound to the head, and the other received a nonfatal wound to the leg. Immediately after these shootings, the defendant shot himself in the head, causing extensive organic brain injury. In June, 1988, the defendant was charged with murder in violation of General Statutes 53a-54a (a), attempted murder in violation of General Statutes 53a-49 and 53a-54a (a), and assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes 53a-59 (a)(1).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10641 - State v. Curtis, No. Cr97 13 40 66 (Aug 3, 1999)