Commonwealth v. Packer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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. “A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: ... causes [serious bodily] injury [to another] intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Smith, J. · Commonwealth v. Hoffman

2. “In passing upon a post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal, a trial court is limited to determining the presence or absence of that quantum of evidence necessary to establish the elements of the crime. To determine the legal sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury's verdict of guilty, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, which has won the verdict, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. We then determine whether the evidence is sufficient to permit a jury to determine that each and every element of the crimes charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the function of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the weight to be accorded the evidence produced. The jury is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence introduced at trial. The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with the defendant's innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the jury unless the evidence be so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hoffman

3. “). Our Supreme Court has defined malice as follows: [I]t is not malice in its ordinary understanding alone, a particular ill-will, a spite or a grudge. Malice is a legal term, implying much more. It comprehends not only a particular ill-will, but every case where there is wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty, although a particular person may not be intended to be injured. Id. at 168 (quoting Commonwealth v. Drum , 58 Pa. 9 , 15 (1868) ). Further, our Supreme Court has recognized that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hoffman