286 Pa. Super. 282 - Commonwealth v. Candia’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2006
15 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 Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Commonwealth v. Bighum · Commonwealth v. Harper · Commonwealth v. Williams
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Furthermore, the testimony elicited on direct examination opened the door to cross-examination on Candia’s previous crimes. Trial counsel’s strategy in seeking this testimony was grossly inappropriate for the purposes he sought to achieve. The right to full cross-examination which does not go beyond the scope of direct examination is guaranteed. (Citation omitted). Trial counsel’s decision to question the appellant about his past criminal acts served only to invite very damaging cross-examination by the Commonwealth. Certainly [an effective trial counsel] would not have placed Candía on the stand under a theory so tenuous as to believe admission of previous criminal acts would demonstrate credibility. Even if so incredible a theory were possible, no reasonable strategy would follow which included the invitation to the Commonwealth to use evidence of previous convictions against the appellant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robertson v. State“Candía charges that his [trial] counsel improperly extracted testimony from him — regarding previous crimes — which subjected him to Commonwealth questioning which drew his character into disrepute. Candía answered [trial] counsel’s questions with the understanding that their purpose was to cause Candía to demonstrate his honest recollections of past criminal acts. In this fashion, appellant was to prove himself credible. Appellant, however, was subjected to cross-examination which ridiculed his character with the introduction of his past drug-related criminal activity. Appellant’s counsel objected strenuously but to no avail. The trial court permitted the Commonwealth’s line of questioning.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robertson v. State
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.