2005 Pa. Super. 414 - Commonwealth v. Hurst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 3732. Homicide by vehicle (a) Offense.—Any person who recklessly or with gross negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic except section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the cause of death. [[Image here]] § 3742.1. Accidents involving death or personal injury while not properly licensed (a) Offense defined.—A person whose operating privilege was disqualified, canceled, recalled, revoked or suspended and not restored or who does not hold a valid driver’s license and applicable endorsements for the type and class of vehicle being operated commits an offense under this section if the person was the driver of any vehicle and caused an accident resulting in injury or death of any person.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 281 - Commonwealth v. Jarosz · 2013 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. Kutzel

2. “I. Is the evidence insufficient to support the guilty verdict for Accident Involving Death or Personal Injury because the Commonwealth has established no more than that a car accident occurred? Is this not a mere accident, not a crime? II. Is the evidence insufficient to support [Appellant’s] conviction of Accident Involving Death or Personal Injury While Not Properly Licensed, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3742.1(a), because the Commonwealth failed to produce evidence of the requisite mens rea, which in this case is criminal negligence? A.Does the Commonwealth’s claim that [Appellant’s] driving under a suspended license in and of itself constituted criminal negligence elevate[] the crime to one of absolute liability contrary to Pennsylvania law? B.As the evidence would not support holding [Appellant] liable even under a standard of ordinary negligence, does it not follow that his conduct would not be held negligent under the heightened standard of criminal negligence?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. Kutzel

3. “[Appellant’s] conviction for AIDPI while not properly licensed required the Commonwealth to demonstrate that [Appellant] caused an accident that resulted in the injury or death of a person, and that his operating privilege was either disqualified, canceled, recalled, revoked or suspended (and not restored), or that [Appellant] did not hold a valid driver’s license. [Appellant’s] conviction for DWS-DUI related required the Commonwealth to demonstrate that [Appellant’s] operating privilege was suspended or revoked as a condition of acceptance of ARD (for driving under influence, or for a similar offense that occurred outside of the Commonwealth), or for a refusal to submit to chemical testing. A review of the plain language of these statutes demonstrates that DWS-DUI related clearly imposes an additional requirement that a license suspension be related to DUI or ARD. Such an element is not contemplated by the AIDPI statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 281 - Commonwealth v. Jarosz