2012 Pa. Super. 75 - Commonwealth v. Bricker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hile § 3121(c) requires some mens rea for the sexual intercourse element, mens rea is immaterial to the age element of § 3121(c). The statute is [ ... ] an impure strict liability crime where culpability is required with respect to at least one material element but is not required as to others. * * * When a statute includes a level of culpability, that level of culpability shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. The General Assembly has expressed a contrary purpose here. It has ren dered a defendant’s belief regarding a complainant’s age irrelevant. It is well-settled that the General Assembly has an interest in recognizing that older, more mature individuals are in a position that would allow them to take advantage of the immaturity and poor judgment of very young minors. Given this interest, and that a defendant[’]s belief regarding a complainant’s age is immaterial, a contrary purpose plainly appears. It is difficult to believe the [Legislature intended to require extra proof for an inchoate crime but excuse it for the underlying offense. As the General Assembly has expressly disapproved mistake of age defenses, and as the solicitation statute does not require proof of all elements of the underlying crime, we find a solicitor may not escape liability for the rape of a child merely by proffering ignorance as to the victim’s age.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 198 - Commonwealth v. Helsel

2. “The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact[-]finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. 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 Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 198 - Commonwealth v. Helsel

3. “Rule 512 states the following. Rule 512. Dispositional Hearing D. Court’s findings. The court shall enter its findings and conclusions of law into the record and enter an order pursuant to Rule 515. On the record in open court, the court shall state: (1) its disposition; (2) the reasons for its disposition; (3) the terms, conditions, and limitations of the disposition; and (4) if the juvenile is removed from the home: (a) the name or type of any agency or institution that shall provide care, treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation of the juvenile, and (b) its findings and conclusions of law that formed the basis of its decision consistent with 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301 and 6352, including why the court found that the out-of-home placement ordered is the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and best suited to the juvenile’s treatment, supervision, rehabilitation, and welfare;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Interest of: C.R., a Minor