2012 Pa. Super. 220 - Commonwealth v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 261 - Commonwealth v. Yocolano · Commonwealth v. Bidwell

2. “[I]t is clear that [Appellant] did not exercise his right to choose private counsel at a reasonable[ 8 ] time. [Appellant] chose his private counsel three days pri- or to the start of trial. The Court had appointed counsel to [Appellant] on two other occasions in this matter. At the start of trial, [Appellant] was represented by private counsel and [] court-appointed counsel. [Appellant] elected not to object to the withdrawal of his court-appointed counsel. Further, the record in this case demonstrates that Attorney Pisanchyn’s only reason for requesting the continuance was the fact that he was recently retained. Attorney Pisan-chyn’s bald assertion of an insufficient amount of time to prepare is not sufficient. Additionally, neither [Appellant] nor his counsel stated specifically how counsel would have prepared differently had counsel been given more time. [Appellant] has not, in any manner, indicated how he was prejudiced by the denial of his continuance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 10 - Commonwealth v. Antidormi

3. “Generally, evidence of prior bad acts or unrelated criminal activity is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in conformity with those past acts or to show criminal propensity. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). However, evidence of prior bad acts may be admissible when offered to prove some other relevant fact, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and absence of mistake or accident. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2). In determining whether evidence of other prior bad acts is admissible, the trial court is obliged to balance the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial impact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 168 - Commonwealth v. Sitler