State v. Lamont Fields’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[only] if a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Conn. App. 101 - Bell v. Commissioner of Correction · 184 Conn. App. 150 - Bell v. Commissioner of Correction

2. “the proper standard to [determine whether a petitioner's kidnapping conviction requires reversal due to the omission of a Salamon instruction] would be the harmless error standard applied on direct appeal.... On direct appeal, [i]t is well established that a defect in a jury charge which raises a constitutional question is reversible error if it is reasonably possible that, considering the charge as a whole, the jury was misled.... [T]he test for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless ... is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.... A jury instruction that improperly omits an essential element from the charge constitutes harmless error [only] if a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error .... The failure to charge in accordance with Salamon is viewed as an omission of an essential element ... and thus gives rise to constitutional error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 Conn. App. 388 - Britton v. Commissioner of Correction

3. “On the contrary, restraint may be used in the commission of the [other substantive] offense ... even though it is not an element of that offense. Thus, depending on the facts of the [other substantive] crime, the fact finder reasonably might conclude that the kidnapping was merely incidental to the [other substantive] crime irrespective of whether that crime [inherently] requires the use of restraint.... Although it is true, of course, that not every assault involves an appreciable restraint of the victim, many do, and, in those circumstances, we see no reason why a defendant should be denied the benefit of a Salamon instruction simply because the state is not required to prove restraint of the victim as an element of the assault.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Conn. App. 415 - White v. Commissioner of Correction