Commonwealth v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At "the heart of every conspiracy" lies the "common understanding or agreement" between the actors. Commonwealth v. Kennedy , 499 Pa. 389 , 453 A.2d 927 , 929 (1982) (citations omitted). "Implicit in any conspiracy is proof ... that an accused agrees to participate in the alleged criminal activity." Commonwealth v. Derr , 501 Pa. 446 , 462 A.2d 208 , 210 (1983). The criminal union being prosecuted cannot be based upon an agreement to complete a broad, undefined objective at some unknown point. Rather, the agreement must rest upon the mutual specific intent to carry out a particular criminal objective. "The sine qua non of a conspiracy is the shared criminal intent." [Com. v.] Weston , [ 561 Pa. 199 ] 749 A.2d [458] at 463 [ (2000) ] (citing Commonwealth v. Wayne , 553 Pa. 614 , 720 A.2d 456 , 464 (1998), quoting Commonwealth v. Schomaker , 501 Pa. 404 , 461 A.2d 1220 (1983) ). "Without this common purpose, a conspiracy cannot be maintained." Derr , 462 A.2d at 209 . Proving the existence of such an agreement is not always easy, and is rarely proven with direct evidence. Commonwealth v. Spotz , 552 Pa. 499 , 716 A.2d 580 , 592 (1998). "An explicit or formal agreement to commit crimes can seldom, if ever, be proved and it need not be, for proof of a criminal partnership is almost invariably extracted from the circumstances that attend its activities." Commonwealth v. Strantz , 328 Pa. 33 , 195 A. 75 , 80 (1937). Indeed, "[a] conspiracy may be proven inferentially by showing the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Jordan

2. “(a) Definition of conspiracy.-- A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Jordan

3. “Accomplice defined.-- A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he: (i) solicits such other person to commit it; or (ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Jordan