2011 Pa. Super. 62 - Commonwealth v. Mentzer’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Mistick, Inc. v. Northwestern National Casualty Co. · Com. v. Washington · Mistick, Inc. v. Northwestern National Casualty Co. · Commonwealth v. Aponte · 348 Pa. Super. 589 - Commonwealth v. Reagan
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the amendment change^ the factual scenario supporting the charges; (2) whether the amendment adds new facts previously unknown to the defendant; (3) whether the entire factual scenario was developed during a preliminary hearing; (4) whether the description of the charges changed with the amendment; (5) whether a change in defense strategy was necessitated by the amendment; and (6) whether the timing of the Commonwealth’s request for amendment allowed for ample notice and preparation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court may allow an information to be amended when there is a defect in form, the description of the offense(s), the description of any person or any property, or the date charged, provided the information as amended does not charge an additional or different offense. Upon amendment, the court may grant such postponement of trial or other re .lief as is necessary in the interests .of justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The purpose of Rule 564 is to ensure that a defendant is fully apprised of the charges, and to avoid prejudice by prohibiting the last minute addition of alleged criminal acts of which the defendant is uninformed." Commonwealth v. Sinclair , 897 A.2d 1218 , 1221 (Pa. Super. 2006). "Our courts apply the rule with an eye toward its underlying purposes and with a commitment to do justice rather than be bound by a literal or narrow reading of the procedural rules." Commonwealth v. Grekis , 411 Pa. Super. 513 , 601 A.2d 1284 , [1289] (1992). As stated in Sinclair , when presented with a question concerning the propriety of an amendment, we consider: whether the crimes specified in the original indictment or information involve the same basic elements and evolved out of the same factual situation as the crimes specified in the amended indictment or information. If so, then the defendant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal conduct. If, however, the amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the elements or defenses to the amended crime are materially different from the elements or defenses to the crime originally charged, such that the defendant would be prejudiced by the change, then the amend[ment] is not permitted. Sinclair , 897 A.2d at 1221 (quoting Commonwealth v. Davalos , 779 A.2d 1190 , 1194 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 756 , 790 A.2d 1013 (2001) (citation omitted) ). Additionally, in reviewing a grant to amend a”
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.