Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 256 Pa. Super. 439 - Commonwealth v. Hude

256 Pa. Super. 439 - Commonwealth v. Hude’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
2
states following
April 2009
most recently cited

59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Commonwealth v. Hude (1983), Commonwealth v. Hude (1980)

59 state decisions

4001978198019902000decided

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 Commonwealth v. Bighum · Commonwealth v. Wable · Commonwealth v. Peterson · Commonwealth v. Burdell · Commonwealth v. Ulatoski

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

  1. “... on the one side, the actual need for the other crimes evidence in the light of the issues and the other evidence available to the prosecution, the convincingness of the evidence that the other crimes were committed and that the accused was the actor, and the strength or weakness of their other-crimes evidence in supporting the issue, and on the other, the degree to which the jury will probably be roused by the evidence to overmasting hostility.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"`One of our most fundamental and prized principles in the administration of criminal law is that a distinct crime, except under certain special circumstances, cannot be given in evidence against a defendant who is being tried for another crime. This is because the fact that a person has committed one offense is not proof that he has committed another and because the effect of such testimony upon a jury is nevertheless bound to create prejudice and an emotional reaction on their part against the defendant'. Commonwealth v. Burdell, 380 Pa. 43, 47 , 110 A.2d 193, 195 (1955). See also Commonwealth v. Peterson, 453 Pa. 187 , 307 A.2d 264 (1973); Commonwealth v. Boulden, 179 Pa.Super. 328 , 116 A.2d 867 (1955); See, generally, McCormick on Evidence, § 190 at 447-454 (2nd Ed. 1972). Special circumstances justifying exceptions to the general rule exist when the evidence of other crimes `tends to prove (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme, plan or design embracing commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others; or (5) to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial — in other words, where there is such a logical connection between the crimes that proof of one will naturally tend to show that the accused is the person who committed the other.' Commonwealth v. Peterson, supra, 453 Pa. at 197-198 , 307 A.2d 269 . See also Commonwealth v. Wable, 382”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[Wjhile monetary gain may have been a common motive between the alleged prior offer to sell and the subsequent alleged sales, there is no causal connection between the two crimes and the occurrence of the first crime sheds no light on why or how the subsequent crimes charged occurred. Id., 256 Pa.Super. at 444 , 390 A.2d at 185 .”
    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.