2006 Pa. Super. 226 - Commonwealth v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The offense of robbery presents a unique question vis-a-vis the Magliocco holding because the offense of robbery is broadly worded and, similar to felony murder, also contains a predicate offense, that offense being theft ... Like felony murder, robbery does not require the completion of the predicate offense, theft, but it does require that force be utilized or threatened while in the course of committing a theft ... The effect of this language is that an acquittal of robbery does not merely translate into the jury’s finding that the offense had not been completed, i.e., that the contemplated theft was not committed. Rather, an acquittal of robbery translates into the jury’s finding that either: (1) no force had been employed in the transaction that constituted a completed or attempted theft, including in flight after a completed or attempted theft, or (2) that if force was employed, it did not occur during a completed or attempted theft, or in the flight after either. Indeed, the broad wording of the offense of robbery negates, for the most part, the crime of attempted robbery as any overt attempt to commit theft will constitute robbery if the requisite force is employed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 324 - Commonwealth v. Robinson

2. “[B]y [statutory] definition, in order to convict for felony murder it is not essential that the jury find that the predicate offense was actually completed. In effect, all the felony murder statute requires is for the jury to conclude that a criminal homicide was committed while the defendant participated in a completed or an attempted delineated, i.e., predicate, offense. * * * ... to the extent that felony murder does not require the commission, ie., completion, of the predicate offense, an acquittal of the predicate offense will not always mean that the homicide did not occur in the ‘perpetration of a felony.’ That is, the homicide could have occurred during the course of, or after, an unsuccessful attempt to commit the predicate offense.....Thus, it would be possible for a felony murder to occur even though the predicate offense was not ‘committed.’ ””

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

3. “Ethnic intimidation required that the predicate offense be “committed” with malicious intent toward the race of an individual or group of individuals whereas felony murder requires that one kill another while “engaged in the perpetration of a felony.” ... [T]he term “commits” is more restrictive than the phrase “engaged in the perpetration of a felony.” The term “commit,” or its variation “commission,” connotes the completion of the offense whereas the term “engaged in the perpetration of’ suggests that mere participation in a criminal attempt will suffice ... Thus, by definition, in order to convict for felony murder it is not essential that the jury find that the predicate offense was actually completed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 324 - Commonwealth v. Robinson