State v. Beliveau’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (2000), Altfeter v. Borough of Naugatuck (1999)
38 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · State v. Golding · South Dakota v. Neville · Pennsylvania v. Muniz
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Pennsylvania v. Muniz , . . . prior to advising the defendant of his Miranda rights, the police CT Page 12494 transported him to the police station. At the station, the police asked the defendant to submit to the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, the "walk and turn" test and the "one leg stand" test. . . . The defendant made several incriminating statements while he was attempting to comprehend an officer's instructions and while he was performing those sobriety tests. . . . Additionally, he made incriminating statements when he asked to submit to a Breathalyzer test. . . . The defendant claimed that all of those statements were inadmissible because they were elicited before he had been advised of his Miranda rights. . . . The Supreme Court rejected the defendant's claim, holding that the police officer's "dialogue with Muniz concerning the physical sobriety tests . . . contained limited and carefully worded inquiries as to whether Muniz understood . . . instructions [about the sobriety tests], but these focused inquiries were necessarily attendant to the police procedure held by the [state] court to be legitimate. Hence, Muniz's incriminating utterances during this phase of the . . . proceedings were voluntary in the sense that they were not elicited in response to custodial interrogation.". . . Additionally, the court held "that Miranda [did] not require suppression of the statements Muniz made when asked [by the police] to submit to a breathalyzer examination . . . [bec”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While we do not condone the court's failure to comply with [Practice Book § 64-1(a) ], and would decline in most instances to search the transcript to ascertain the factual basis in support of the trial court's ruling, we would not [ordinarily] exalt form over substance if the deficiency were of a technical nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Two threshold conditions must be satisfied in order to invoke the warnings constitutionally required by Miranda : (1) the defendant must have been in custody; and (2) the defendant must have been subjected to police interrogation." State v. Tomasko , 238 Conn. 253 , 267 , 681 A.2d 922 (1996).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.