2002 Pa. Super. 120 - Commonwealth v. Van Horn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It has long been the law in Pennsylvania that an individual on trial for an offense against the criminal law is permitted to introduce evidence of his good reputation in any respect which has "proper relation to the subject matter" of the charge at issue. Such evidence has been allowed on a theory that general reputation reflects the character of the individual and a defendant in a criminal case is permitted to prove his good character in order to negate his participation in the offense charged. The rationale for the admission of character testimony is that an accused may not be able to produce any other evidence to exculpate himself from the charge he faces except his own oath and evidence of good character. It is clearly established that evidence of good character is to be regarded as evidence of substantive fact just as any other evidence tending to establish innocence and may be considered by the jury in connection with all of the evidence presented in the case on the general issue of guilt or innocence. Evidence of good character is substantive and positive evidence, not a mere make weight to be considered in a doubtful case, and,... is an independent factor which may of itself engender reasonable doubt or produce a conclusion of innocence. Evidence of good character offered by a defendant in a criminal prosecution must be limited to his general reputation for the particular trait or traits of character involved in the commission of the crime charged. The cross-examinati”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Johnson

2. “the relatives' own experience with Appellant and their perceived relationship between Appellant and the victim is not testimony regarding Appellant's `general reputation in the community.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Johnson

3. “Appellant had a good relationship with the victim and that Appellant did not sexually abuse any of them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Johnson