2003 Pa. Super. 301 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2025
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Meadows · Commonwealth v. Hicks · 378 Pa. Super. 353 - Commonwealth v. Groff · City of Minneapolis v. Altimus · 88 Wash. 2d 573 - State v. Mriglot
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To absolve Appellant of criminal behavior by the complete defense of involuntary intoxication, she had the burden to show such intoxication by a preponderance of the evidence. If this defense is to be relied upon, Appellant must show that the combination is capable of causing the extreme intoxication which is alleged. The trial court cannot take judicial notice of this fact. Thus, at a minimum it will be necessary to present expert witnesses to establish this effect. Here, the only evidence of record is Appellant's self-serving statements that she had not read any of the labeling and was not told by her doctor of any possible side effects and thus was unaware of the alleged heightened effect of the patch when combined with alcohol consumption. Appellant did not present her physician or any other medical expert to establish that an increased inebriating effect was even possible. It follows that Appellant has not come close to putting the integrity of the conviction into question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Clearly the evidence presented with respect to Appellant's driving suggests that she was unable to exercise judgment, to deliberate or to react prudently to changing circumstances and conditions. In addition, the evidence presented with respect to her physical faculties and her extremely poor performance during the administration of field sobriety tests indicates that she was under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree which rendered her incapable of safe driving.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“as defined in the Model Penal Code. The court then held that the Model Penal Code formulation was consistent with Pennsylvania law-and that, as a result, the defendant had no valid defense to the DUI charge. Id. at 639-640 . In particular, the court noted that the evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Solomon v. State
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.