2014 Pa. Super. 289 - Commonwealth v. Vargas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the Commonwealth must introduce evidence demonstrating either [the defendant's] participation in the drug-related activity or evidence connecting [the defendant] to the specific room or areas where the drugs were kept.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Mikitiuk · Commonwealth v. Hall

2. “The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 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 substi tute 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 · from the dissent
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 27 - Commonwealth v. Irvin

3. “Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to deal with the realities of criminal law enforcement. Constructive possession is an inference arising from a set of facts that possession of the contraband was more likely than not. We have defined constructive possession as “conscious dominion.” We subsequently defined “conscious dominion” as “the power to control the contraband and the intent to exeicise that control.” To aid application, we have held that constructive possession may be established by the totality of the circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 22 - Commonwealth v. Roberts