289 Pa. Super. 369 - Commonwealth v. Battle’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 1989
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Garvin · Commonwealth v. O'SEARO · Commonwealth v. McCusker · Commonwealth v. Graves · Commonwealth v. Murray
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Traditionally, we recognized not only the jury’s ability to determine the credibility of the witnesses but also we have placed this determination within their sole province. Commonwealth v. Hampton, 462 Pa. 322 , 341 A.2d 101 (1975); Commonwealth v. Murray, 460 Pa. 605 , 334 A.2d 255 (1975); Commonwealth v. Oates, 448 Pa. 486 , 295 A.2d 337 (1972); Commonwealth v. Garvin, 448 Pa. 258 , 293 A.2d 33 (1972). To permit psychological testimony for this purpose would be an invitation for the trier of fact to abdicate its responsibility to ascertain the facts relying upon the questionable premise that the expert is in a better position to make such a judgment. Our research has failed to reveal any authority for this proposition nor has [appellee] been able to supply either authority for or persuasive arguments in support of such a position. We do not believe that a concept as fundamental to our law as trial by jury of one’s peers can be cavalierly abandoned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A panel of this court affirmed the Judgment of Sentence. As in O’Searo the psychological testimony was not offered to show the likelihood of Battle’s behavior under a given stimulus nor to show lack of capacity to form the specific intent to kill. Rather, the testimony was offered to show that the appellant was in fact acting out of a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger. As such the proffered testimony did nothing more than “buttress the credibility of the defendant.””
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.