State v. Bouknight’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When an improper evidentiary ruling is not constitutional in nature, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmful.... [A] nonconstitutional error is harmless when an appellate court has a fair assurance that the error did not substantially affect the verdict.... [O]ur determination [of whether] the defendant was harmed by the trial court's ... [evidentiary ruling] is guided by the various factors that we have articulated as relevant [to] the inquiry of evidentiary harmlessness ... such as [1] the importance of the ... testimony in the [state's] case, [2] whether the testimony was cumulative, [3] the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony ... on material points, [4] the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, [5] the overall strength of the [state's] case.... Most importantly, we must examine the impact of the evidence on the trier of fact and the result of the trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 81 - State v. Grant · 174 Conn. App. 401 - State v. Purcell

2. “[w]hen an improper evidentiary ruling is not constitutional in nature, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmful.... [W]hether [an improper ruling] is harmless in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, such as the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength * of the prosecution's case.... Most importantly, we must examine the impact of the ... evidence on the trier of fact and the result of the trial.... [T]he proper standard for determining whether an erroneous evidentiary ruling is harmless should be whether the jury's verdict was substantially swayed by the error.... Accordingly, a nonconstitutional error is harmless when an appellate court has a fair assurance that the error did not substantially affect the verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Holley

3. “[t]he proper standard for determining whether an erroneous evidentiary ruling is harmless should be whether the jury's verdict was substantially swayed by the error”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Conn. App. 401 - State v. Purcell