2016 Pa. Super. 124 - Commonwealth v. Roane’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When reviewing jury instructions, we are governed by the following standard: Our standard of review in assessing a trial court's jury instructions is as follows: [W]hen evaluating the propriety of jury instructions, this Court will look to the instructions as a whole, and not simply isolated portions, to determine if the instructions were improper. We further note that, it is an unquestionable maxim of law in this Commonwealth that a trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration. Only where there is an abuse of discretion or an inaccurate statement of the law is there reversible error. Commonwealth v. Kerrigan , 920 A.2d 190 , 198 (Pa.Super. 2007) (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Commonwealth v. Trippett , 932 A.2d 188 , 200 (Pa.Super. 2007). We have explained the abuse of discretion standard as follows: It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion[;] it is necessary to show an actual abuse of the discretionary power. An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather exists where the court has reached a conclusion [that] overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Commonwealth v. Bryant , 620 Pa. 218 , ”

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

2. “The fact that a petitioner presents a new argument or advances a new theory in support of a previously litigated issue will not circumvent the previous litigation bar.”

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

3. “the highest court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue....”

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