280 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably 392 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Fromal (1990), Commonwealth v. Edwards (2006)
41 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. Kloiber · Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus · Commonwealth v. Bighum · Commonwealth v. Goosby · Commonwealth v. Yount
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The scope of our review of the voir dire questioning is limited since the extent of the examination is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and we will not reverse absent palpable error. Commonwealth v. Sparrow, 471 Pa. 490 , 370 A.2d 712 (1977); Commonwealth v. Kahley, 467 Pa. 272 , 356 A.2d 745 (1976). The scope of voir dire should be limited to questions attempting to disclose lack of qualification and whether the juror has formed a fixed opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence. Commonwealth v. England, 474 Pa. 1 , 375 A.2d 1292 (1977); Commonwealth v. Legree, 256 Pa.Super. 128 , 389 A.2d 634 (1978). It is not designed to provide a basis for peremptory challenge, and thus, “generally speaking, the ordinary prejudices of veniremen are beyond the pale of exploration on voir dire.” Commonwealth v. Legree, supra, 256 Pa.Superior Ct. at 133, 389 A.2d at 634 (recognized exception for racial prejudice). We are conscious that it would be unrealistic to expect jurors to be free from all prejudices, and therefore, we require only that jurors be conscious of their sworn responsibility and attempt to reach a decision solely on the facts presented. Commonwealth v. England, supra; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 452 Pa. 130 , 305 A.2d 5 (1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Relevant evidence then, is evidence that in some degree advances the inquiry, and thus has probative value, and is prima facie admissible.” Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 469 Pa. 545, 564 , 366 A.2d 1216, 1225 (1976); Commonwealth v. Walzack, 468 Pa. 210, 218 , 360 A.2d 914, 918 (1976) (both quoting C. McCormick, Evidence § 185 at 437-38 (2d ed. 1972))____ Of course, the prejudicial impact of the evidence may outweigh its probative value, and the court may be moved to exclude the evidence on this basis. Commonwealth v. Hickman, 453 Pa. 427 , 309 A.2d 564 (1973); Commonwealth v. Quarles, 230 Pa.Super. 231 , 326 A.2d 640 (1974). In determining whether evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered and all attendant circumstances. Commonwealth v. Kinnard, 230 Pa.Super. 134 , 326 A.2d 541 (1974). The trial judge’s determination that evidence is not to remote to be admissible is within his sound discretion and will not be overturned absent an abuse. Id.”
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.