2003 Pa. Super. 74 - Commonwealth v. Gooding’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably 2005 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Jones (2005), Commonwealth v. Flanagan (2004)
36 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. Widmer · Krupinski v. Vocational Technical School Eastern Northampton County · Commonwealth v. Mouzon · Commonwealth v. Brown · Commonwealth v. Nelson
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) General rule — A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, or both. “(b) Conduct of another — A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when:... “(3) he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense. “(c) Accomplice defined — A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: “(1) with intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he: “(i) solicits such other person to commit it; or “(ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it. “(d) Culpability of accomplice — When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense.” 18 Pa.C.S. §306.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the jury’s verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.”
2 later decisions 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.