245 Pa. Super. 134 - Commonwealth v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 1986
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 235 Pa. Super. 211 - Commonwealth v. Whyatt · Commonwealth v. Staudenmayer · 165 Pa. Super. 561 - Commonwealth v. Hopkins
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An accomplice is one who could be indicted and punished for the crime with which the accused is charged. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 165 Pa.Super. 561, 564 , 69 A.2d 428 , 430 (1949). Commonwealth v. Staudenmayer, 230 Pa.Super. 521, 525 , 326 A.2d 421, 423-24 (1974). Under the new Crimes Code a person is expressly not an accomplice when “the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission” unless otherwise provided by the Crimes Code or the law defining the offense. Act of December 6, 1982, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, 18 Pa.C.S. § 306(f)(2). In the present case the existence or participation of an individual suspected of criminal conduct is clearly a necessary component of the accused’s offense of hindering the apprehension of another for crime. Because Section 5105 makes no provision for finding those inevitably involved in the accused’s conduct culpable as accomplices, they fall within the exception stated in Section 306(f)(2) and cannot be considered accomplices. We must conclude, therefore, that Louella MacNeil was not an accomplice in the offense of hindering her own apprehension.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[0]ne Louella MacNeil testified that she and appellant had planned the robbery of a store and on February 4, 1975, she carried out the robbery armed with a knife she had taken from appellant’s home. Fleeing the scene, she returned directly to appellant’s house where she and appellant sat down to count the proceeds of the job. When the police arrived at the house, MacNeil fled upstairs and followed appellant’s instructions to change her clothes while appellant took steps to hide the money.”
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.