249 Pa. Super. 451 - Commonwealth v. Van Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant has also submitted what we generally call in the law alibi testimony. An alibi is merely a name of the nature of the defense that the accused person was not at the place that the crime was committed, but was elsewhere when that crime was committed. Obviously a person cannot be found guilty of a crime charged unless he was present at the scene of the crime. The defendant has offered evidence that he was not present at the scene of the crime, but rather that he was at Gino’s at work. When you come to consider this evidence or this defense, you must consider, among other things, whether the testimony given by the alibi witnesses covered the entire time the offense is shown to have been committed, and whether it precludes the possibility of the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime. You should consider this evidence along with other evidence in the case in determining whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s alibi evidence that he was not present at the scene of the crime may in and of itself work an acquittal, or it, together with other evidence, may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. When you come to consider the alibi testimony, you will not only consider it, the single testimony of each witness given, but you must also consider it in the context of the other evidence in this case and in context with the evidence given by the eyewitness or the vi”

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

2. ““It [alibi evidence] may, either standing alone or together with other evidence, be sufficient to leave in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt which, without it, might not otherwise exist. It will be the duty of the trial judge to carefully instruct the jury as to the relationship of the evidence of the prosecution and the evidence of the defendant as each bears upon the essential elements of the crime charged.” 396 Pa. 231 , 232, 151 A.2d 441, 446 .”

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

3. “A defendant is not entitled to an [alibi] instruction under Commonwealth v. Bonomo, supra, unless there is some testimony in the record, introduced by either the defense or the Commonwealth, raising the possibility of an alibi defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 392 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Fromal