2015 Pa. Super. 128 - Commonwealth v. Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the .victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 48 - Commonwealth v. Bonner · Commonwealth v. DiClaudio

2. “"this Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review." [ ] Disalvo , 70 A.3d [at] 903 [ ] (internal citation omitted). However, "prior decisions from this Court involving whether a substantial question has been raised by claims that the sentencing court 'failed to consider' or 'failed to adequately consider' sentencing factors [have] been less than a model of clarity and consistency." Commonwealth v. Seagraves , 103 A.3d 839 , 842 (Pa.[ ]Super.[ ]2014) (citing [ Commonwealth v. Dodge , 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) ] ). In [ ] Dodge , this Court determined an appellant's claim that the sentencing court "disregarded rehabilitation and the nature and circumstances of the offense in handing down its sentence" presented a substantial question. Dodge [, 77 A.3d] at 1273. This Court has also held that an excessive sentence claim-in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors-raises a substantial question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. White

3. “[i]t is well settled that a prosecutor has considerable latitude during closing arguments and his arguments are fair if they are supported by the evidence or use inferences that can. reasonably be derived from the evidence. Further, prosecutorial misconduct does not take place unless the unavoidable effect of the comments at issue was to prejudice the jurors by forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, thus impeding their ability to weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict. Prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated under a harmless error standard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 38 - Commonwealth v. Brown