264 Pa. Super. 476 - Commonwealth v. Lezinsky’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2000 · most notably 296 Pa. Super. 441 - Commonwealth v. Miranda (1982), 304 Pa. Super. 297 - Commonwealth v. Malloy (1982)
38 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. Walker · 223 Pa. Super. 60 - Commonwealth v. Lockhart · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Shaddock v. Ashe · 250 Pa. Super. 402 - Commonwealth v. Bailey · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Russo v. Ashe, Warden
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In our present case, although there were various consequences to various victims, the consequences derived from a single “act” or “transaction”, specifically the ignition of the barn, which may be the basis of various charges, but ultimately of only one sentence. The trial judge’s opinion rejected defendant’s argument that the charge of criminal mischief should “fall” because it “merges” into the arson charge as a “lesser included offense of the crime of arson.” For this purpose he pointed out correctly that criminal mischief, under the Crimes Code contains two elements not included in arson, specifically criminal mischief involves (1) “tangible property”, (personal property) rather than a “building or occupied structure” (real property); and (2) intentional, reckless, or negligent acts, whereas arson does not include negligence. These differences may therefore prevent a technical “merger” of criminal mischief into arson, but, nevertheless, we hold that principles of Shaddock and Walker, supra, apply to our case, and do not permit duplicate sentences for the single “act” or “transaction.” It should perhaps be noted further that criminal mischief is so defined as to permit, in some other case, a negligent act, which would not be sufficient to prove arson; but in this present case the proffered proof of both offenses was the same, intentional act of igniting a building. 264 Pa.Super. at 479 , 400 A.2d at 185-86 (footnote omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Wjhere we cannot determine whether the declared invalidity of a conviction on one count may have affected the lower court’s sentencing on the remaining counts, we must remand to give the lower court an opportunity to reconsider sentencing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“One of the purposes of the criminal law is to punish offenses against the Commonwealth, as defined by the Legislature, and it follows that, “[t]he criminal prosecution is for the injury done to the Commonwealth, and not for the injury done to the individual who may, if entitled, obtain redress through a civil action...””
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.