2012 Pa. Super. 55 - Commonwealth v. Burwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The trial court] stated the following in his instructions to the jury: Now, serious bodily injury means impairment of physical condition which increased a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Now, under the circumstances, it appears that the injuries suffered by Mr. Regruth constitute serious bodily injury. But that is a decision for you to make. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/2009, at 73-74 (emphasis added). Although we are well aware that the trial court informed the jury that the question of whether Bur-well caused the victim to suffer serious bodily injury was ultimately its decision, we cannot underestimate the weight that a jury would afford the opinion of a trial judge who opines that the element of serious bodily injury was proven in a case. Commonwealth v. Claiborne, 175 Pa.Super. 42 , 102 A.2d 900 (1953) (“[J]udge occupies an exalted and dignified position; he is the one person to whom the jury, with rare exceptions, looks for guidance[.]”). It is very possible that the judge’s comments usurped the jury’s fact-finding role and prejudiced Burwell. See Commonwealth v. McCoy, 401 Pa. 100 , 162 A.2d 636 (1960) (trial judge’s negative characterization of defendant in charge to jury prejudiced defendant’s right to fair trial before impartial jury despite judge’s statement that jury had absolute discretion to determine verdict)[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 264 - Commonwealth v. Conaway