2002 Pa. Super. 32 - Commonwealth v. Fink’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) General rule.—An out-of-court statement made by a child victim or witness, who at the time the statement was made was 12 years of age or younger, describing any of the offenses enumerated in 18 Pa.C.S. Chs. 25 (relating to criminal homicide), 27 (relating to assault), 29 (relating to kidnapping), 31 (relating to sexual offenses), 35 (relating to burglary and other criminal intrusion) and 37 (relating to robbery), not otherwise admissible by statute or rule of evidence, is admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding if: (1) the court finds, in an in camera hearing, that the evidence is relevant and that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and (2) the child either: (i) testifies at the proceeding; or (ii) is unavailable as a witness. (a.l) Emotional distress.—In order to make a finding under subsection (a)(2)(ii) that the child is unavailable as a witness, the court must determine, based on evidence presented to it, that testimony by the child as a witness will result in the child suffering serious emotional distress that would substantially impair the child’s ability to reasonably communicate. In making this determination, the court may do all of the following: (1) Observe and question the child, either inside or outside the courtroom. (2) Hear testimony of a parent or custodian or any other person, such as a person who has dealt with the child in a medical or therapeutic setting. (a.2) Counsel and ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 3 - Commonwealth v. Kriner · 2003 Pa. Super. 255 - Commonwealth v. O'Drain

2. “In order to succeed on an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, Appellant must establish that the underlying claim is of arguable merit, counsel’s course of action lacked any reasonable basis for advancing his client’s interests, and Appellant has suffered prejudice as a result. Counsel is presumed effective and Appellant has the burden of proving otherwise. When it is clear that Appellant has failed to meet the prejudice prong [of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim], the claim may be disposed on that basis alone, without a determination of whether the first two prongs have been met.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 291 - Commonwealth v. Carter

3. “Evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct shall not be admissible in prosecutions under this chapter except evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent of the alleged victim is at issue and such evidence is otherwise admissible pursuant to the rules of evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 221 - Commonwealth v. Pugh