2013 Pa. Super. 178 - Commonwealth v. Barker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims requires that we evaluate the record “in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308 , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (2000). “Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029, 1032 (Pa.Super.2005). Nevertheless, “the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty.” Id.; see also [Aguado, 760 A.2d at 1185 ] (“[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with the defendant’s innocence.”). “[W]here no single bit of evidence will by itself conclusively establish guilt, the verdict will be sustained where the totality of the evidence supports the finding of guilt.” Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 256 , 561 A.2d 699, 704 (1989). Thus, our Courts have recognized that proof of guilt may be inferred entirely from evidence of circumstances that attended the commission of the crime. See Brewer, 876 A.2d at 1032 . “The fact that the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence.” ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 41 - Commonwealth v. Kinard

2. “[W]e find this case readily distinguishable from the decisions ... in which the Commonwealth Court resolved the license suspension appeals of motorists who had refused testing without a valid reason. See, e.g., McGee v. Commonwealth, 803 A.2d 255, 259-60 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (affirming a license suspension and officer’s refusal of an alternative to a breath test where motorist did not aver any medical condition that prevented his completing the breath test); Mooney v. Com., Dept. of Transp. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 654 A.2d 47, 50 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (concluding that motorist’s statement that she feared needles did not provide a satisfactory reason on which to base her request for alternate testing).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vora v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

3. “(i) Request by driver for test. — Any person involved in an accident or placed under arrest for a violation of section 1543(b)(l.l), 3802 or 3808(a)(2) may request a chemical test of his breath, blood or urine. Such requests shall be honored when it is reasonably practicable to do so.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vora v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing