2009 Pa. Super. 245 - Commonwealth v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Layton · 2006 Pa. Super. 38 - Commonwealth v. Stevenson · 2007 Pa. Super. 235 - Commonwealth v. Perez · 2009 Pa. Super. 139 - Commonwealth v. Zortman · 2008 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Jones
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.
“In order to obtain a conviction under [Section] 6105, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a firearm and that he was convicted of an enumerated offense that prohibits him from possessing, using, controlling, or transferring a firearm. The term “firearm” is defined in that [S]ection as any weapon that is “designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6105®. *** [Thomas] does not dispute that ,the revolver was designed to expel bullets or that he attempted to destroy it in the presence of the arresting officer; he simply maintains that a defendant cannot be convicted under [S]eetion 6105 unless the weapon is found to be operable. In leveling this argument, [Thomas] relies upon [ Layton, supra], and Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759 (Pa.Super. 2006). [W]e reject this claim[.] In Layton, supra, our Supreme Court reversed a conviction for illegal possession of a handgun because the weapon was inoperable, and the record failed to establish, why the gun would not fire. However, that case was decided under a provision of the Uniform Firearms Act, 18 P.S. § 4628, which has been repealed and replaced by [S]ection 6105. The current statute applies to any weapon that is designed to fire ammunition containing an explosive charge, whereas [Section 4628 contained much narrower language and defined a firearm as “any pistol or revol”
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.