2006 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Koehler’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2023
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. Ohle · Commonwealth v. Devlin · 2005 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Jones · In the Mule · 2006 Pa. Super. 204 - Commonwealth v. Levanduski
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny person who knowingly possesses or controls any book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““sexual intercourse, masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view such depiction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Likewise without merit are [a]ppellant’s sufficiency claims based on: others in his home, to wit, his aunt, brother, and friend all having equal access to the computer; no direct evidence that he ever viewed the materials at issue; no direct evidence that [appellant had been the one to subscribe and pay for internet service; and no direct evidence that [a]ppellant was the one to have visited the pornographic websites from where the twelve videos were obtained and paid for the videos. Each argument implicates the jury’s factual determinations, and, as we note above, it is the province of the jury to pass on the weight to be accorded evidence and to assess the credibility of witnesses. [] Here, the jury clearly disbelieved defense theories on [appellant’s access to and activities on the computer in question, and there exists no reason to disturb the jury’s determination on appeal. Nevertheless, it is clear that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s determination. The Commonwealth established, inter alia, that the computer bore a screen name, systems properties name, and a software registration name all referring in some respect to [appellant’s proper name. Furthermore, the Commonwealth established that 12 of the 14 video clips in question were downloaded onto his computer in the early morning before [appellant’s work hours began, and the other two videos were downloaded at nearly midnight, after [appellant’s work hours. The totality of the circumstances presented at”
1 later decision 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.