2006 Pa. Super. 377 - Commonwealth v. Raybuck’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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]o be reviewed on the merits, a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence must raise a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate. [ Commonwealth v.] Pennington, [ 761 A.2d 212, 216 (Pa.Super.2000) ] (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b)). A substantial question is raised when the appellant advances a “colorable argument” that the sentence was either “inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code” or “contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Id. at 216-16. Our case law has established that application of the deadly weapons enhancement presents a substantial question. See id. at 216 (concluding that the appellant raised a substantial question by challenging the trial court’s application of the deadly weapons enhancement, based on the appellant’s assertion that he had not had actual possession of the deadly weapon, a gun); Commonwealth v. Hatcher, 746 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Pa.Super.2000) (same); Commonwealth v. Magnum, 439 Pa.Super. 616 , 654 A.2d 1146, 1149-50 (1995) (concluding that the Commonwealth raised a substantial question by challenging the trial court’s failure to consider a deadly weapons enhancement in a situation where the appellant used a knife to threaten the victims); [Commonwealth v.] Scullin, 414 Pa.Super. 442 , [ 607 A.2d 750, 752-53 (1992) ] (concluding that the Commonwealth raised a substantial question by challenging the trial court’s determination that a tire iron thrown by the appel-l”

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

2. ““Mouse poison is clearly an instrumentality, the broad definition of which is a ‘thing used to achieve an end or purpose.’ Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed., 2004. Mouse poison is used to kill rodents. Instantly, it became a deadly weapon when appellee included it in the sandwich that she prepared for her husband to consume, in light of her admitted intent to poison him. See [Commonwealth v.] Scullin, [ 414 Pa. Super. 442 ,] 607 A.2d [750,] 753 [(1992)] (holding that the tire iron ‘became a deadly weapon at the moment [the defendant] threw it in the direction of the ultimate victim.’). “That the amount of poison appellee added to the sandwich was apparently insufficient to actually cause serious bodily injury is irrelevant to our conclusion that mouse poison is a deadly weapon under the circumstances of this case. By design and normal usage, mouse poison kills rodents, and thus by its very nature it is toxic and dangerous.” Commonwealth v. Raybuck, 915 A.2d 125, 129 (Pa. Super. 2006). 21”

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

3. “[w]hen the court determines that the offender possessed a deadly weapon during the commission of the current conviction offense, the court shall consider the [deadly weapon enhancement]/Possessed Matrix (§ 303.17). An offender has possessed a deadly weapon if any of the following were on the offender’s person or within his immediate physical control: (i) Any firearm, (as defined in 42 Pa. C.S.[A.] § 9712) whether loaded or unloaded, or (ii) Any dangerous weapon (as defined in 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 913), or (iii) Any device, implement, or instrumentality designed as a weapon or capable of producing death or serious bodily injury where the court determines that the defendant intended to use the weapon to threaten or injure another individual.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 131 - Commonwealth v. Brougher