2017 Pa. Super. 141 - Commonwealth v. Rush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The decision to discharge a juror is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion." Commonwealth v. Carter , 537 Pa. 233 , 643 A.2d 61 , 70 (1994). "This discretion exists even after the jury has been [e]mpanelled and the juror sworn ." Id. (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court explained that "a finding regarding a venireman's impartiality 'is based upon determinations of demeanor and credibility that are peculiarly within a trial [court]'s province.... [Its] predominant function in determining juror bias involves credibility findings whose basis cannot be easily discerned from an appellate record.' " [ Commonwealth v. ] Smith , 540 A.2d [246, 256 (Pa.Super. 1988) ] (quoting Wainwright v. Witt , 469 U.S. 412 , 428-29, 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) ). It is the appellant's burden to show that the jury was not impartial. Commonwealth v. Noel , 629 Pa. 100 , 104 A.3d 1156 , 1169 (2014). * * * In Commonwealth v. Briggs , our Supreme Court set forth the standard for prospective juror disqualification: The test for determining whether a prospective juror should be disqualified is whether he is willing and able to eliminate the influence of any scruples and render a verdict according to the evidence, and this is to be determined on the basis of answers to questions and demeanor.... It must be determined whether any biases or prejudices can be put aside on proper instruction of the court.... A challenge for cause s”

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

2. “"Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right." Before we address such a challenge, we first determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant's brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code.”

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

3. “[W]hen the record demonstrates that the sentencing court was aware of the guideline ranges and contains no indication that incorrect guideline ranges were applied or that the court misapplied the applicable ranges, we will not reverse merely because the specific ranges were not recited at the sentencing hearing.”

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