2011 Pa. Super. 25 - Commonwealth v. Moreno’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Champney · Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh · 431 Pa. Super. 453 - Commonwealth v. Swerdlow · 2001 Pa. Super. 238 - Commonwealth v. DiStefano · Commonwealth v. Chmiel
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims, we must determine whether, the .evidence admitted at trial, as well .as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are 'sufficient to support all the elements of the offense. Additionally, to sustain a conviction, the facts and circumstances which the Commonwealth must prove, must be such that every essential element of the crime is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Admittedly, guilt must be based on facts and conditions proved, and hot on suspicion or surmise. Entirely .circumstantial evidence is sufficient so long as the combination, of the. evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Any doubts regarding, a defendant’s, guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is ' so weak' and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the” combined circumstances: The fact findér is free to believe all, part, or none 'of the' evidence pre-sénted at trial.”
3 later decisions 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.