State v. Crespo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

178 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 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he sixth amendment to the United States constitution as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment, and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, guarantee[s] to a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel.... Where a constitutional right to counsel exists, our [s]ixth [a]mendment cases hold that there is a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 804 - Grover v. Commissioner of Correction · 186 Conn. App. 320 - State v. Barjon

2. “A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person ... except that in any prosecution under this subsection, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant committed the proscribed act or acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, provided nothing contained in this subsection shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Conn. App. 486 - State v. Ames · 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5515 - State v. Courchesne, No. Cr4-273002 (May 19, 1999)

3. “Although this case presents an unusual procedural posture where a three-judge panel serves as the finder of facts (instead of a jury) and where the burden is on the defendant to prove his affirmative defense, the normal rules for appellate review of factual determinations apply and the evidence must be given a construction most favorable to sustaining the court's verdict. ... Moreover, the question is whether upon the facts established and the inferences drawn therefrom the fact-finder could have reasonably concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence failed to establish that the defendant acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse. In sum, except where an abuse of discretion is clearly shown , the conclusion of a trial court should be affirmed so long as it is a reasonable one on the basis of the evidence adduced and the inferences drawn therefrom.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Conn. App. 486 - State v. Ames