2000 Pa. Super. 15 - Commonwealth v. Zugay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, “the role of the trial judge is to determine that ‘notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.’ ” It has often been stated that “a new trial should be awarded when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court: Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is th”

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

2. “[PJermits proof of the offense by any evidentiary means, including evidence of outward symptoms such as bloodshot eyes, irregular driving patterns, odor of alcohol, slurred speech, admissions of drinking, etc. Along with other types of evidence, BAC evidence may also be used to prove charges under subsection (a)(1). Thus: where a defendant is charged with a violation of section 3731(a)(1), a .10% test result is but one piece of evidence to be considered in deciding whether the person was under the influence. No expert testimony is needed in order for BAC evidence to be admissible in a conviction for (a)(1) since a defendant may be convicted of that offense despite the fact that the defendant’s blood-alcohol level could not be related back to the time of the defendant’s driving. The amount of time elapsed between the time of last driving and the blood sample is not dispositive of its admissibility in a prosecution under subsection (a)(1) but only affects the weight of the evidence, which is fully subject to attack through evidence for the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 380 - Commonwealth v. West

3. ““A motion in limine is a procedure for obtaining a ruling on the admissibility of evidence prior to or during trial, but before the evidence has been offered.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 399 Pa.Super. 266 , 582 A.2d 336, 337 (1990), aff'd, 534 Pa. 51 , 626 A.2d 514 (1993). Such a ruling is similar to that upon a motion to suppress evidence. Commonwealth v. Gordon, 543 Pa. 513, 517 , 673 A.2d 866, 868 (1996).[ ] Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence he within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse the court’s decision on such a question absent a clear abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Weber, 549 Pa. 430, 436 , 701 A.2d 531, 534 (1997). Id. [Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 558 Pa. 478, 493 , 738 A.2d 406, 414 (1999)].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Johnson