State v. Bennett-Gibson’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably 104 Conn. App. 46 - State v. Skidd (2007), 110 Conn. App. 608 - State v. Pommer (2008)
42 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 · Strobel v. Strobel · State v. Courchesne · State v. Rutan · State v. Cavallo
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person is guilty of intimidating a witness when, believing that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted, such person uses, attempts to use or threatens the use of physical force against a witness or another person with intent to (1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of the witness in the official proceeding, or (2) induce the witness to testify falsely, withhold testimony, elude legal process summoning the witness to testify or absent himself or herself from the official proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]ntent may be, and usually is, inferred from the defendant's verbal or physical conduct.... Intent may also be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.... The use of inferences based on circumstantial evidence is necessary because direct evidence of the accused's state of mind is rarely available.... Furthermore, it is a permissible, albeit not a necessary or mandatory, inference that a defendant intended the natural consequences of his voluntary conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“plainly warns potential perpetrators that the statute applies to any conduct that is intended to prompt a witness to testify falsely or to refrain from testifying in an official proceeding that the perpetrator believes to be pending or imminent.”
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.