260 Pa. Super. 225 - Commonwealth v. Ponder’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably 305 Pa. Super. 516 - Commonwealth v. Parker (1982), 275 Pa. Super. 489 - Commonwealth v. Tingle (1980)
25 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 Commonwealth v. Farquharson · Commonwealth v. Kravitz · Commonwealth v. Blevins · Commonwealth v. Meadows · Commonwealth v. Rankin
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... [A]n examination of the trial court’s opinion in support of granting the motion in arrest of judgment reveals that the trial court, in passing on that motion engaged in a weighing of the evidence, rather than determining the absence or presence of that quantum of evidence necessary to establish some proof of the elements of the crimes ... In view of the fact that the initial verdict was guilty, it is apparent that the trial court re-evaluated Ostroff’s credibility and the weight to be assigned thereto. As such, the trial court did not follow the standard articulated above for considering a motion in arrest of judgment, but rather weighed the evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““ ‘Although the assertion that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is not a proper consideration in passing on a motion in arrest of judgment, a criminal defendant may be given a new trial on that ground, and this is true, even where the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.’ ” Commonwealth v. Ponder, 260 Pa.Super. 225, 226 , 393 A.2d 1235, 1236 (1978); see also Commonwealth v. Davis, 477 Pa. 197, 203 , 383 A.2d 891, 894 (1978) (that “the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence” is a proper ground for relief in a motion for a new trial).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In order for the trial court to properly grant a criminal defendant's motion in arrest of judgment on the ground of insufficient evidence, `it must be determined that accepting all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which if believed [the verdict could properly have been based] it would be nonetheless insufficient in law to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the [defendant] is guilty of the crime charged'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.