275 Pa. Super. 489 - Commonwealth v. Tingle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person may not be convicted of more than one offense defined by this chapter for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 361 Pa. Super. 261 - Commonwealth v. Bright · 298 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Wanamaker

2. “Under the Crimes Code of Pennsylvania, a person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure with the intent to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the person who enters is licensed or privileged to do so. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a). In order to prevail at trial, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following three elements: (1) entry of a building or occupied structure by the defendant; (2) with the contemporaneous intent on the part of the defendant of committing a crime therein; (3) at a time when the premises are not opened to the public and the defendant was not then licensed or privileged to enter. Commonwealth v. Tingle, 275 Pa.Super. 489 , 419 A.2d 6 (1980); Commonwealth v. Brosko, 243 Pa.Super. 312, 315 , 365 A.2d 867, 868 (1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 306 Pa. Super. 422 - Commonwealth v. Franklin

3. “Both offenses for which appellant was found guilty fall within the purview of chapter 9, of the Crimes Code, the chapter mentioned in Section 906, and it is apparent in reviewing the facts that both offenses were committed with one objective in mind. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction for criminal conspiracy and possessing an instrument of a crime was improper. Given the error by the lower court, we have the option to either remand for sentencing, or amend the sentence, directly____ Since the sentence for possession obviously did not affect the sentence for criminal conspiracy, we shall not remand, but shall merely vacate the sentence imposed for possession of an instrument of a crime as the lesser offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 394 Pa. Super. 223 - Commonwealth v. Woods