Benjamin v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) A person is guilty of murder when: (a) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; except that in any prosecution a person shall not be guilty under this subsection if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. However, nothing contained in this section shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for or preclude a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime; or (b) Including, but not limited to, the operation of a motor vehicle under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes the death of another person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Beaumont v. Commonwealth

2. “[i]t is well-settled law within the Commonwealth that a "jury is presumed to follow an admonition to disregard evidence; thus, the admonition cures any error".... Moreover, "[t]here are only two circumstances in which the presumptive efficacy of an admonition falters: (1) when there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's admonition and there is a strong likelihood that the effect of the inadmissible evidence would be devastating to the defendant; or (2) when the question was asked without a factual basis and was inflammatory or highly prejudicial."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Commonwealth

3. “[T]he triggering event for extreme emotional disturbance may ‘fester in the mind’ before surfacing to exact its damage .... [and] such a delayed event may be the ‘impact of a series of related events’ with no specific time frame between the triggering event and the actual homicide. However, ... there exists a “subsidiary inquiry” as to whether there intervened between the provocation and the homicide a cooling-off period sufficient enough to preclude a conclusion that the provocation was adequate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Park v. Commonwealth