2014 Pa. Super. 78 - Commonwealth v. Trinidad’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. “whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, [is] sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt 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. When evaluating the credibility and weight of the evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. For purposes of our review under these principles, we must review the entire record and consider all of the evidence introduced.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Mikitiuk · Commonwealth v. McCoy

2. “(1) [W]hether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, "Pa.R.‘A.P. 902, 903; (2) whether the issue was- properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, Pa. R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, ,.Pa.R.A.F. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a. substantial question that the-sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 9781(b).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 93 - Commonwealth v. Diehl · 2015 Pa. Super. 256 - Commonwealth v. Dawson

3. “[questions regarding the admission of evidence are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we, as an appellate court, will not disturb the trial court’s rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of that discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; rather, discretion is abused when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 247 - Commonwealth v. Richard