2011 Pa. Super. 277 - Commonwealth v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner. (b) Definition. — As used in this section the word “receiving” means acquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 238 - Commonwealth v. Robinson · 2012 Pa. Super. 271 - Commonwealth v. Nero

2. “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provide that no person shall, for the same offense, “be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Pa. Const, art. I, § 10; U.S. Const, amend. V. The constitutional prohibition against “double jeopardy” was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal, a second prosecution for the same, offense after a conviction and multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply unless jeopardy attaches. In Pennsylvania, jeopardy attaches when a defendant stands before a tribunal where guilt or innocence will be determined.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Ball

3. “The determination by a trial court to declare a mistrial after jeopardy has attached is not one to be lightly undertaken, since the defendant has a sub stantial interest in having his fate determined by the jury first impaneled. A failure of the lower court to consider less drastic alternatives before declaring a mistrial creates doubt about the exercise of the court’s discretion and may bar re-prosecution because of double jeopardy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 133 - Commonwealth v. Hallman