297 Pa. Super. 444 - Commonwealth v. Bowermaster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The ‘controlling question’ in cases raising this issue ‘is whether or not a juror could reasonably infer from the facts presented that the accused had engaged in prior criminal activity.’ Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 181 , 292 A.2d 373, 375 (1972). If such an inference is created then a mistrial must be granted. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in Commonwealth v. Nichols, 485 Pa. 1, 4 , 400 A.2d 1281, 1282 (1979) that ‘[not] all references which may indicate prior criminal activity warrant reversal.’ Ibid. As we stated in Commonwealth v. Colon, 264 Pa.Super. 314, 321-322 , 399 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1979), there is ‘no per se rule requiring a new trial for every reference [to prior criminal conduct]. The decision whether to declare a mistrial when faced with these situations is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 Pa. Super. 203 - Commonwealth v. Gaerttner · 387 Pa. Super. 473 - Commonwealth v. Perdue

2. “Defendant also contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because of contradictory testimony given by Commonwealth witnesses Donald Powell and Edna West. Defendant states that Powell testified Layne sat on the stairs after Defendant reentered the house and West stated that Layne sat on the wall along the stairs, rocking back and forth. Describing their flight from the house, Powell indicated that Defendant ran out of the house with him and then d'own an alley, while West testified that she saw only Powell emerge from the house and a second person come from around the far side of the porch. West also said that the porch light was on while she was observing the scene, but the first police officer to arrive a few minutes later testified that the light was not on. Defendant additionally argues that Powell contradicted himself by giving different versions under oath at the preliminary hearing, the June mistrial and the September retrial. Defendant claims that Powell testified at the preliminary hearing that he saw nothing unusual about Defendant’s appearance when Defendant reentered the house, while saying in June that he saw blood on him but could not say where and then testifying at the retrial that he saw blood on Defendant’s hands. Defendant also points to Powell’s testimony at the preliminary hearing that he heard nothing while he was in the bathroom but testified at both trials that he heard a scream. Defendant further alleges contradictions between Pow”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 430 Pa. Super. 63 - Commonwealth v. Manchas

3. “Q. Were you questioned by the police? A. I was, sir. Q. Did you initially tell them what you have told us here today at first? A. No sir, I told them that it was mine and that Mr. Bowermaster was, in fact, hitchhiking. Q. Why did you tell them that? A. Well, this is my first time and I figured that, you know, well, I just figured they would be easier on me than they would on him basically. (Emphasis in original.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 Pa. Super. 203 - Commonwealth v. Gaerttner