2016 Pa. Super. 93 - Commonwealth v. Diehl’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. “Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, evidence of other bad acts or crimes that are hot currently being prosecuted against the defendant are not admissible against the defendant to show his bad character or propensity to commit criminal acts. However, evidence of other [acts] may be admissible where that evidence is ■ used for some other purpose. Such purposes explicitly Include “proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity^ absence of mistake, or lack of accident:” Rule 404(b)(2).”

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

2. “[T]he driving record was relevant to establish that defendant had grounds to be aware of the risk his drinking and driving while intoxicated presented to others.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. – State v. Claerhout –