Commonwealth v. Stanton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The portions of the lower court’s charge relevant to intent are as follows: ‘This is the indictment and it is basically following the words of the statute. One statute, the burglary section says: a person is guilty of burglary if he enters into a building . . . with the intent to commit a crime therein unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the act [or] is licensed or privileged to enter.’ The court did not define intent. Later in the charge, the court stated that ‘. . . [t]he Commonwealth say [sic] these defendants went to the barn of Mr. Sherman and Mr. Brown respectively and they took from those barns cattle belonging to Mr. Sherman and Mr. Brown. “ ‘If you accept the testimony as it has been presented and you believe what the Commonwealth has told you then, of course, they have established the crime of burglary and the crime of theft, always remembering that the theft would be incorporated into the burglary itself . . . “ ‘I told you what the one side of the issue is that the Commonwealth says that these people went in and took cattle out of the barns and therefore they committed a burglary.’ “After discussing the appellants’ defense, the court commented that ‘. . . we are not talking about the actualities here. We are talking about intent. Did this and this is what the Commonwealth has got to prove-, that he Vaughn Howell took this cattle, this cow and these calves, with the mind of a thief. If he did, he is guilty. If he didn’t though and if his beli”

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

2. ““. . . ‘Mind of a thief’ is not self-defining, but is a term of art which in turn requires definition. A ‘thief’ under § 3921 of the Crimes Code, is one who ‘unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.’ (Emphasis added.) Thus to know a thief, the jury had to know what it meant to have an intent. Again, the judge’s charge failed to define intent, thereby leaving the jury free to substitute its own definition for an essential element of the offense.” Id. 239 Pa.Super. at 64 , 362 A.2d at 364 . (Footnote omitted.)”

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

3. ““. . . [WJhether the charge considered as a whole is ‘a fair and complete presentation of the issue and theories involved?’ Delp v. Heath, 234 Pa.Super. 607 , 340 A.2d 530 (1975); because, if the charge was inadequate to inform the jury of the law, counsel was ineffective in failing both to object after the charge and to supplement the charge with an appropriate point for charge.” Commonwealth v. Stanton, supra, 239 Pa.Super. at 63 , 362 A.2d at 363 .”

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