313 Pa. Super. 310 - Commonwealth v. Azim’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2019
2 federal appellate · 13 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Commonwealth v. Roux · 187 Pa. Super. 206 - Commonwealth v. Horvath · 298 Pa. Super. 294 - Commonwealth v. Volk · 265 Pa. Super. 494 - Commonwealth v. Anderson
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.
“Definition of conspiracy. — A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he: The substantive offense of hindering apprehension or prosecution is defined as follows: Hindering apprehension or prosecution (a) Offense defined. — A person commits an offense if, with intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for crime, he: (1) harbors or conceals the other; (2) provides or aids in providing a weapon, transportation, disguise or other means of avoiding apprehension or effecting escape; (3) conceals or destroys evidence of the crime, or tampers with a witness, informant, document or other source of information, regardless of its admissibility in evidence; (4) warns the other of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this paragraph does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with law; or (5) volunteers false information to a law enforcement officer. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105. Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to satisfy its burden of proof by not introducing into evidence facts establishing that an earlier crime was indeed committed. Appellant reasons that without proof of an earlier crime, one cannot be held to have violated section 5105. We do not read section 5105 as requiring that such an element be proven. Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for a violation of se”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he driver of a `get away' car can be found guilty. . . if it is reasonable to infer that he was aware of the actual perpetrator's intention. His agreement to effectuate the escape aids the perpetrator in the planning and commission of the actual crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Conspiracy to commit burglary has been found where the defendant drove codefendants to the scene of a crime and then later picked them up.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.