State v. Nokes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Instructions relating to 14-227a (c) should fulfill the legislature's intent that a jury may infer a defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the offense under appropriate factual circumstances. `Accordingly, [the court construes] . . . statutory inferences as permissive inferences that a jury may draw under appropriate circumstances in which such an inference is rational or reasonable.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simard v. Salinas, No. Cv 99 0493042s (May 18, 1999)

2. “An entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows — but does not require — the trier of fact to infer the elemental fact form the proof by the prosecutor of the basic one and that places no burden of any kind on the defendant . . . [does not violate due process unless] there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simard v. Salinas, No. Cv 99 0493042s (May 18, 1999)

3. “To pass constitutional muster, a presumption must be cast as a `permissive inference . . . [which] does not relieve the State of its burden of persuasion because it still requires the State to convince the jury that the suggested conclusion should be inferred based on the predicate facts proved.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simard v. Salinas, No. Cv 99 0493042s (May 18, 1999)