State v. Gomes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading. Erroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial. Error is not to be viewed in isolation and considered purely in the abstract. It must be examined in the light of the entire proceedings and given the effect which the whole record shows it to be entitled. In that context, the real question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that error may have contributed to conviction. If there is such a reasonable possibility in a criminal case, then the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgment of conviction on which it may have been based must be set aside.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Culkin · State v. Hau Phan

2. “Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Culkin

3. “We may recognize plain error when the error committed affects substantial rights of the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Culkin