State v. Daniel W. E.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our review of [a jury instruction] claim requires that we examine the [trial] court's entire charge to determine whether it is reasonably [probable] that the jury could have been misled .... While a request to charge that is relevant to the issues in a case and that accurately states the applicable law must be honored, a [trial] court need not tailor its charge to the precise letter of such a request.... If a requested charge is in substance given, the [trial] court's failure to give a charge in exact conformance with the words of the request will not constitute a ground for reversal.... As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury ... we will not view the instructions as improper.... Additionally, we have noted that [a]n [impropriety] in instructions in a criminal case is reversible ... when it is shown that it is reasonably possible for [improprieties] of constitutional dimension or reasonably probable for nonconstitutional [improprieties] that the jury [was] misled.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Conn. App. 733 - State v. Roberto Q. · 187 Conn. App. 438 - State v. Carey

2. “only admitted for the limited purpose of corroborating what the complaining witness, [the victim], has testified to in court with respect only to the fact and timing of her complaint, the time and place of the alleged sexual assaults, and the identity of the alleged perpetrator .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Conn. App. 733 - State v. Roberto Q. · 172 Conn. App. 843 - Antwon W. v. Commissioner of Correction

3. “not to be considered by you to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that is, the proof of what is said in those out-of-court statements ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Conn. App. 733 - State v. Roberto Q. · 172 Conn. App. 843 - Antwon W. v. Commissioner of Correction