2016 Pa. Super. 132 - Commonwealth v. Mickel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Our] standard of review for a trial court's evidentiary rulings is narrow. The admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only if the trial court has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record. Commonwealth v. Mendez , 74 A.3d 256 , 260 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, "[t]o constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party. Commonwealth v. Lopez , 57 A.3d 74 , 81 (Pa.Super. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Interpreting the language of Pennsylvania's Wiretap Act is a pure question of law and thus demands a de novo standard of review. Commonwealth v. Deck , 954 A.2d 603 , 606 (Pa.Super. 2008). As our Supreme Court explained, "Pennsylvania's Wiretap Act is generally modeled after the federal analogue, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 - 2520. The federal legislation authorizes states to adopt coordinate statutes permitting the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications and to grant greater, but not lesser, protection than that available under federal law." Commonwealth v. Spangler , 570 Pa. 226 , 809 A.2d 234 , 237 (2002) (internal citat”

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

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 substitute 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
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Johnson

3. “The admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only if the trial court has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Biesecker