2004 Pa. Super. 266 - Commonwealth v. John’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant insists that because there was no “Missy,” his conduct was inherently unlikely to result in the commission of a crime and so dismissal was proper. However, this argument ignores the statutory requirements for dismissal, which explicitly include a find ing that the actor does not present a public danger. The danger appellant presents is clear. As the trial court aptly noted, “the fact that a criminal purpose would not have been accomplished because the ‘victim’ was not, in fact, a child, does not diminish or vitiate [appellant’s] capacity to do wrong or his intent to influence someone to engage in a criminal act. Moreover, the record (as evinced by the email trail and the [appellant’s] act of coming quite a distance to this Commonwealth to meet his child victim) plainly demonstrates that [appellant] fully intended to accomplish his forbidden motives.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/30/03 at 10. Appellant sought to have sex with a 13 year-old girl, suggested various sexual scenarios the two would explore, sent pornographic materials, supplemented by his own instructions, on how the sexual contact would proceed and made specific arrangements to meet the girl. He then traveled from his place of business in Delaware in the hope that all of this preparation would culminate in the sexual relations he had carefully planned. The conclusion that appellant presents a public danger, and so is not entitled to dismissal pursuant to § 905, is not erroneous.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 513 F. Supp. 2d 457 - Gagliardi v. Fisher

2. “Appellant here affirmatively made contact in Pennsylvania. He sent criminal solicitations to this state and those solicitations were received here.... [W]e hold that appellant’s solicitations were made in Delaware County when they were received there. Certainly, a person who receives a criminal solicitation while sitting at her computer terminal in Pennsylvania is being solicited within this Commonwealth. Jurisdiction of appellant’s solicitation crimes properly lies in Pennsylvania because appellant committed those crimes here.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 254 - Commonwealth v. Vergilio

3. “[j]urisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Fields