2001 Pa. Super. 60 - Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2003
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Schneble v. Florida · Rushen v. Spain · Commonwealth v. Story · Commonwealth v. Widmer
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The first responsibility of the sentencing judge [is] to be sure that he ha[s] before him sufficient information to enable him to make a determination of the circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Carter, 336 Pa.Super. 275 , 485 A.2d 802, 804 (1984). Thus, a sentencing judge must either order a PSI report or conduct sufficient presentence inquiry such that, at a minimum, the court is apprised of the particular circumstances of the offense, not limited to those of record, as well as the defendant’s personal history and background. See [Commonwealth v.] Martin, 466 Pa. 118 , 134 n. 26, 351 A.2d 650 , 658 n. 26 (1976). While the extent of the pre-sentence inquiry may vary depending on the circumstances of the case, “[a] more extensive and careful investigation is clearly called for in felony convictions, particularly where long terms of confinement are contemplated.” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Court: Is that it? Juror: The definition of stalking says, “two or more.” In this instance, there appears to be only one. Can I ask that question? Court: Well, I have read the definition for you. Okay? You now have to apply that definition to the facts as you find them. I can’t be part of your deliberations. You know what the definition is, and you will collectively decide what the facts are, and you are to apply one to the other. Juror: All right. Court: You may now retire to continue your deliberations. N.T., 10/15/98, at 145. Appellant was convicted of all charges, except terroristic threats.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.