2001 Pa. Super. 249 - Commonwealth v. Roche’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “...difficult of direct proof[.] [W]e must look to all the evidence to establish intent, including, but not limited to, appellant’s conduct as it appeared to his eyes[.] Intent can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence; it may be inferred from acts or conduct or from the attendant circumstances. Commonwealth v. Roche, 783 A.2d 766, 768 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 736 , 798 A.2d 1289 (2002).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Gruff · 20 Pa. D. & C.5th 319 - Commonwealth v. Emmanuelle

2. “(1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life;... (4) attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Gruff · 2007 Pa. Super. 289 - Commonwealth v. Patrick

3. “Appellant’s belligerent words and the throwing of one punch are in and of themselves insufficient factors to support the conclusion that Appellant had the requisite intent to cause serious bodily injury when he struck the victim. During the initial encounter in the bar, Appellant did not threaten the victim with harm or injury but merely challenged him to arm wrestle and briefly pushed the victim when the victim declined his offer. When the victim exited the bar and Appellant followed, Appellant again did not specifically threaten the victim with injury or insinuate that he would cause physical harm to the victim, aside from Appellant’s childish inquiry as to whether the victim thought he was a “tough guy.” After Appellant delivered his lone, ill-advised punch with his hand, he ceased his attack immediately and did not engage in further physical contact with the victim. Though the victim was defenseless, Appellant did not continue to strike the victim while the victim was lying motionless on the ground nor did Appellant pursue or extend his attack to the victim’s companion. Moreover, and importantly, Appellant did not possess or use a weapon or other instrumentality of harm at any time before or during the attack. While Appellant’s actions certainly demonstrated the sufficient requisite intent to sustain his conviction for simple assault, in that they showed that he acted with the intent to cause Appellant bodily injury, they were not so egregious or sustained to suggest that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 4 - Commonwealth v. Bruce