290 Pa. Super. 209 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Simple Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1) (“in that she attempts to cause, or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to Tami Marie Krauser, White female 21 years, to wit: she did strike the body of Tami Marie Krauser with hands, fists and hand gun causing laceration to face and neck areas.”) (2) Aggravated Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1) (“in that she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to Tami Marie Krauser or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, to wit: she did, armed with a hand gun point, at Tami Marie Krauser, white female, 21 years.”) (3) Recklessly Endangering Another Person, 18 Pa.C. S.A. § 2705 (“in that she recklessly engages in conduct which places or did place Tami Marie Krauser, white female, 21 years in danger of death or serious bodily injury, to wit: she did, armed with a hand gun point, at Tami Marie Krauser, white female, 21 years”)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 313 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Boettcher · 323 Pa. Super. 62 - Commonwealth v. Aycock

2. ““If a witness has made inconsistent or contradictory statements they may be used to attack the witness’ credibility. Commonwealth v. Bean, 244 Pa.Super. 368, 372 , 368 A.2d 765, 767 (1976); Commonwealth v. Lenker, 202 Pa.Super. 538, 541 , 198 A.2d 347, 349 (1964); Commonwealth v. Bartell, 184 Pa.Super. 528, 537, 136 A.2d 166, 172 (1957). Prior inconsistent statements, however, do not render a witness incompetent or require that his testimony be disbelieved. Id. It is true, of course, that a conviction cannot properly be sustained if it be based upon testimony of a witness which is so contradictory on the essential issues as to make the verdict obviously the result of conjecture or guess. Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 60 , 354 A.2d 545, 550 (1976); Commonwealth v. Lenker, supra, 202 Pa.Super. at 542 , 198 A.2d at 349 ; Commonwealth v. Bartell, supra, 184 Pa.Super, at 537, 136 A.2d at 172 . However, the mere fact that there are some inconsistencies is not alone sufficient to destroy the Commonwealth’s case. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 473 Pa. 62, 68 , 373 A.2d 1051, 1053-54 (1977); Commonwealth v. Bartell, supra, 184 Pa.Super. at 537-38 , 136 A.2d at 172 . It is the function of the trier of the facts, in this case the trial judge, to reconcile conflicting testimony; the mere existence of conflicts in the testimony does not mean that he is required to resort to speculation. Commonwealth v. Duncan, supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 Pa. Super. 260 - Commonwealth v. Henry

3. “The test for determining whether one offense merges into another for purposes of sentencing is whether one crime necessarily involves the other. In order for one crime to necessarily involve the other, the essential elements of one must also be the essential elements of the other, (citations omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 341 Pa. Super. 261 - Commonwealth v. White