State v. Sivak’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably State v. Erhardt (2005), State v. Leggett (2006)
31 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 State v. Golding · Emigrant Savings Bank v. Cam · Strobel v. Strobel · State v. Prioleau · Mazumdar v. Mazumdar
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Assault in the first degree is a specific intent crime. It requires that the criminal actor possess the specific intent to cause serious physical injury to another person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Now, I defined intent [on Friday], I will do it today because it has-it has to be present in your mind and understanding. I want it fresh.... "A person acts intentionally with respect to-to a result or to conduct described by the statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such a result or to engage in such conduct. Intentional conduct is purposeful conduct rather than conduct that is accidental or inadvertent.... "[A] person's intention may be inferred from his conduct. You may infer from the fact that an accused engaged in conduct that he intended to engage in that conduct. An intent to cause death may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the type of weapon used, the manner in which it is used, the type of wounds inflicted, the events leading to it, immediately following the death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is axiomatic that the definition of intent as provided in § 53a-3 (11) 9 embraces both the specific intent to cause a result and the general intent to engage in proscribed conduct. It has become axiomatic, through decisional law, that it is improper for a court to refer in its instruction to the entire definitional language of § 53a-3 (11), including the intent to engage in conduct, when the charge relates to a crime requiring only the intent to cause a specific result.”
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.