2001 Pa. Super. 11 - Commonwealth v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. One of the material elements of the crime of [crime] that the Commonwealth must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the defendant [intended [give specifics]] [knew [give specifics]] [believed [give specifics]] [recklessly [give specifics]] [negligently [give specifics]]. The defendant claims that this element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt because at the time of the alleged offense [he] [she] was reasonably [ignorant] [mistaken] concerning the facts in that [he] [she] [[give specifics]]. 2. [Ignorance] [Mistake] as to a matter of fact for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse is a defense if it negates the [intent] [knowledge] [belief] [recklessness] [negligence] required to establish an element of the crime. Thus, you must consider the evidence tending to show that the defendant was reasonably [ignorant] [mistaken] concerning the facts along with the other evidence in determining whether the Commonwealth has proven the required [intent] [knowledge] [belief] [recklessness] [negligence] beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. In a case where the issue of mistake or ignorance of fact is raised, you must decide whether there was such a mistake or lack of awareness of a fact, whether that mistake or ignorance was reasonable under the circumstances, and whether that mistake or ignorance shows that one of the elements of the crime charged was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. To overcome this defense, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doub”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 164 - Commonwealth v. Scott

2. “It is well established that a bona fide, reasonable mistake of fact may, under certain circumstances, negate the element of criminal intent. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 304 (providing, inter alia, that ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact, for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse, is a defense if “the ignorance or mistake negatives the intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense”); Commonwealth v. Compel, 236 Pa.Super. 404 , 344 A.2d 701 (1975); Commonwealth v. Bollinger, 197 Pa.Super. 492 , 179 A.2d 253, 255 (1962). “It is not necessary that the facts be as the actor believed them to be; it is only necessary that he have ‘a bona fíde and reasonable belief in the existence of facts which, if they did exist, would render an act innocent.’ Commonwealth v. Lefever, 151 Pa.Super. 351 , 30 A.2d 364, 365 (1943). See generally, Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 , 72 S.Ct. 240 , 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952).” Compel, supra, at 702-03 . When evidence of a mistake of fact is introduced, the Commonwealth retains the burden of proving the necessary criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Cottam, 420 Pa.Super. 311 , 616 A.2d 988, 1000-01 (1992). In other words, the Commonwealth must prove either the absence of a bona fide, reasonable mistake, or that the mistake alleged would not have negated the intent necessary to prove the crime charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 164 - Commonwealth v. Scott

3. “Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact, for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse, is a defense if: (1) the ignorance or mistake negatives the intent, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required a establish a material element of the offense; or (2) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 164 - Commonwealth v. Scott