2000 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The most common evidentiary device is the entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows — but does not require — the trier of fact to infer the elemental fact from proof by the prosecutor of the basic one and which places no burden of any kind on the defendant. In that situation the basic fact may constitute prima facie evidence of the elemental fact. When reviewing this type of device, the Court has required the party challenging it to demonstrate its invalidity as applied to him. Because this permissive presumption leaves the trier of fact free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of proof, it affects the application of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard only if, under the facts of the case, there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 379 - Commonwealth v. Freidl

2. “[ W]e conclude that § 3731(a.l) creates a permissible inference [of a BAC above the legal limit at the time of driving]. By its terms, § 3731(a.l) does no more than allow the Commonwealth to establish its case in a § 3731(a)(4) prosecution. Section 3731(a.l) does not shift the burden of proof or the burden of production from the Commonwealth to the defendant. The defendant may introduce competent evidence to rebut the inference and overcome the Commonwealth’s prima facie case. Even in the absence of such evidence, however, the factfinder is not required to find that the defendant had a BAC of .10% or more while he drove. Based upon its independent evaluation of the evidence presented, the factfinder in a § 3731(a)(4) prosecution is always free to ignore the inference allowed by § 3731(a.l).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 354 - Commonwealth v. Snell

3. “common sense permissive evidentiary inference [that a driver was at or above 0.08% BAC] based upon the BAC, if the testing occurred within three hours of driving”

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