State v. Medina’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

126 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term `interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. . . . A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 7897 - State v. West, (Jun. 8, 2001) · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 12990 - State v. Howard, No. Cr6-487769 (Oct. 18, 2002)

2. “Under ... § 53a-54a (a), the state must prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to cause the death of the victim. ... Intent is a mental process which ordinarily can be proven only by circumstantial evidence. An intent to cause death may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound inflicted and the events leading to and immediately following the death. ... The use of inferences based on circumstantial evidence is necessary because direct evidence of the accused's state of mind is rarely available. ... "Whether a criminal defendant possessed the specific intent to kill is a question for the trier of fact. ... This court will not disturb the trier's determination if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ... [I]n viewing evidence which could yield contrary inferences, the [fact finder] is not barred from drawing those inferences consistent with guilt and is not required to draw only those inferences consistent with innocence. The rule is that the [fact finder's] function is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Conn. App. 22 - State v. Franklin

3. “The evaluation of ... evidence on the issue of legal insanity is [within] the province of the finder of fact .... We have repeatedly stated that our review of the conclusions of the trier of fact ... is limited. ... This court will construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's [judgment] and will affirm the conclusion of the trier of fact if it is reasonably supported by the evidence and the logical inferences drawn therefrom. ... The probative force of direct and circumstantial evidence is the same. ... The credibility of expert witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony and to that of lay witnesses on the issue of sanity is determined by the trier of fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Conn. App. 156 - State v. Campbell