227 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 1998 · most notably Brandon v. State (1980), Commonwealth v. Mumma (1980)
3 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Dusky v. United States · Pate v. Robinson · Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie · Commonwealth v. Myma · Commonwealth v. Simpson
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to permit a witness who has violated a sequestration order to testify. Commonwealth v. Martin, 440 Pa. 150 , 269 A.2d 722 (1970). See also United States v. Marson, 408 F.2d 644 (4th Cir. 1968). In exercising this discretion the judge should determine what effect, if any, violation of the order may have had in shaping the testimony the disobedient witness would offer. Commonwealth v. Ross, 190 Pa. Superior Ct. 145 , 152 A.2d 778 (1959). He should consider whether the witness actually heard others testify; whether the witness intentionally disobeyed the order so that he might hear others testify; whether the party calling the witness procured his disobedience; and whether the testimony heard was related to the witness’s expected testimony in such a way that he could have been influenced by or gained knowledge from it. 2 Torcía, Wharton’s Crim. Evid. §405 (18th ed. 1972) ; 14 A.L.R. 3d 16 (1967).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““(a) Whenever a person who has been charged with crime is detained in a penal or correctional institution and he is believed to be mentally disabled so that his commitment to a facility is necessary, a petition for such commitment may be presented to the court of the county where he stands charged with crime. The petition may be made by the warden or other officer in charge of the detaining institution, a relative of the detained person, the detained person or his counsel or the attorney for the Commonwealth. “(b) To assist in determining the questions raised by the petition the court may adopt one or any combination of the following procedures: (1) Appoint two or more physicians to examine the person in the detaining institution and make a report as to whether he is mentally disabled and whether his commitment is necessary. (2) Appoint a commission consisting of two physicians and an attorney which shall examine such person in the detaining institution and in addition, receive any other evidence from any source bearing upon the questions of whether the person is mentally disabled and whether his commitment is necessary. (3) Appoint an attorney to represent such person with reference to the petition. (4) Hold a hearing which may be public or private. Appropriate notice thereof shall be given to all interested parties including the attorney for the Commonwealth. The presence of the person whose commitment is sought, may be compelled. “(c) Any physician appointed by the court t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““ "A judge in a jury trial has a right to interrogate witnesses. It sometimes becomes his duty to do so, even to the point of recalling a witness to supply an omission of proof on a material point: (Citations omitted.) But a judge may so conduct an examination as to make it an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial. “ ‘Witnesses should be interrogated by the judge only when he conceives the interest of justice so requires. It is better to permit counsel to bring out the evidence and clear up disputed points on cross-examination unaided by the court; but where an important fact is indefinite or a disputed point needs to be clarified, the court may see that it is done by taking part in the examination. The practice of a judge entering into the trial of a case as an advocate is emphatically disapproved. The judge occupies an exalted and dignified position; he is the one person to whom the jury, with rare exceptions, looks for guidance, and from whom the litigants expect absolute impartiality....’ ” quoting Commonwealth v. Myma, 278 Pa. 505, 507-08 , 123 A. 486, 487 (1924).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.