State v. Marsala’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. “A fundamental element of due process is the right of a defendant charged with a crime to establish a defense .... An improper instruction on a defense, like an improper instruction on an element of an offense, is of constitutional dimension .... [T]he standard of review to be applied to the defendant's constitutional claim is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled .... In determining whether the jury was misled, [i]t is well established that [a] charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but it is to be considered rather as to its probable effect [on] the jury in guiding [it] to a correct verdict in the case .... The test to be applied to any part of a charge is whether the charge, considered as a whole, presents the case to the jury so that no injustice will result .... In reviewing the trial court's failure to charge as requested, we must adopt the version of facts most favorable to the defendant [that] the evidence would reasonably support .... A challenge to the validity of jury instructions presents a question of law over which [we have] plenary review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Conn. App. 329 - State v. Morales

2. “Where an offer of proof is made with respect to a defense and it is clear from the offer of proof that the defense is insufficient as a matter of law, the trial court may properly refuse to permit evidence of the defense to be submitted to the jury .... This court has ... adopted a definition of the common law defense of necessity that requires a showing by the defendant (a) that there [was] no ... legal alternative available, (b) that the harm to be prevented [was] imminent, and (c) that a direct causal relationship [may] be reasonably anticipated to exist between defendant's action and the avoidance of harm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Conn. App. 329 - State v. Morales