Commonwealth v. Lynn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Arrington , 624 Pa. 506 , 86 A.3d 831 , 842 (2014). "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record." Commonwealth v. Sitler , 144 A.3d 156 , 163 (Pa. Super. 2016) ( en banc ) (citation omitted). Relevance is the threshold for admissibility of evidence. See Commonwealth v. Cook , 597 Pa. 572 , 952 A.2d 594 , 612 (2008). "Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact." Commonwealth v. Drumheller , 570 Pa. 117 , 808 A.2d 893 , 904 (2002) (citation omitted). "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law." Pa.R.E. 402. One such law that limits the admissibility of relevant evidence is Rule 404. Under Rule 404, evidence of "a crime, wrong, or other act" is inadmissible "to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). However, this evidence may be admissible when relevant for another purpose, such as "proving motive, oppo”

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