State v. Acosta’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the charged and uncharged misconduct are sufficiently similar. In the initial stages of both incidents, the defendant placed the victim's hand on his penis.... [A]lthough the defendant's misconduct toward A escalated to vaginal penetration, and his misconduct toward J culminated in inappropriate contact[,] the distinction is unpersuasive. Indeed, because J rebuffed the defendant and threatened to report his actions[,] the jury reasonably could have inferred that he stopped only because she rebuffed his sexual advances. Therefore, the similar conduct in the charged and uncharged incidents supports the relevancy of the uncharged misconduct evidence. The victims were sufficiently similar to render the 1997 misconduct relevant.... In the present case, both victims were prepubescent at the time of the misconduct. Furthermore, both were nieces of the defendant. The familial relationships offered the defendant access to the victims and the opportunity for his actions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lutes · 180 Conn. App. 76 - State v. Daniel W.

2. “[i]t is well established that the victim and the conduct at issue need only be similar-not identical-to sustain the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Conn. App. 76 - State v. Daniel W. · 178 Conn. App. 147 - State v. Eddie N. C.

3. “differences in the severity of misconduct may not illustrate a behavioral distinction of any significance when a victim rebuffs or reports the misconduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Conn. App. 250 - State v. Angel M. · 180 Conn. App. 76 - State v. Daniel W.