91 Conn. App. 392 - State v. Muhammad’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2025
14 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 · Keene Corp. v. United States · American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n v. United States Lines, Inc. · Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez · In re Disbarment of Hurley
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n evaluating the separate ingredients to be weighed in the balancing process, there is no way to quantify them in mathematical terms.... Therefore, [t]he trial court has wide discretion in this balancing determination and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling .... Reversal is required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done.... The burden lies with the party objecting to the admission of evidence of prior convictions to demonstrate the prejudice that is likely to arise from its admission.... The test for determining whether evidence is unduly prejudicial is not whether it is damaging to the defendant but whether it will improperly arouse the emotions of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he fact that a prior conviction is more than ten years old should greatly increase the weight carried by the third prong in the balancing test set forth in § 6-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, unless that prior conviction relates to the witness' veracity .... That ten year benchmark, however, does not present an absolute bar to the use of a conviction that is more than ten years old but rather functions as a guide to assist the court in evaluating the conviction's remoteness .... [T]he measuring point for a remoteness determination under § 6-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence is the date of conviction or the date of release from resulting confinement, whichever is later.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“That prudent course [of permitting evidence of unnamed felony convictions] allows the jury to draw an inference of dishonesty from the prior conviction without the extraordinary prejudice that may arise from naming the specific offense .... Ultimately, [t]he trial court, because of its intimate familiarity with the case, is in the best position to weigh the relative merits and dangers of any proffered evidence .... This principle applies with equal force to the admissibility of prior convictions.”
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.