319 Pa. Super. 463 - Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““the disposition of the section 110 issue does not automatically determine appellant’s double jeopardy question. While in many respects section 110 and the double jeopardy clause serve the same ends, nevertheless, the two provisions are not one and the same. In the first instance, the double jeopardy clause is, of course, a constitutional right; by contrast, section 110 is merely statutory. This distinction is crucial when the question of waiver is an issue. A constitutional right will only be deemed waived where the decision to waive that right is both knowing and intelligent. See cases cited in text, infra, at 641. With regard to statutory provisions, the waiver need only be voluntary. Commonwealth v. Mallon, 279 Pa.Super. 350 , 421 A.2d 234 (1980). Secondly, while the double jeopardy clause and section 110 at times may, as in the instant matter, overlap in their application, this is not true in all situations. The double jeopardy clause prevents subsequent trials by the same sovereign for the same act whether the initial trial resulted in an acquittal or a conviction. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 463 Pa. 472 , 345 A.2d 616 (1975). Section 110, on the other hand, requires that, when certain other requirements are met, all of the charged offenses 'based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode’ be tried at the same time or be barred. Section 110, unlike the dou”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 Pa. Super. 536 - Commonwealth v. Hoburn · 381 Pa. Super. 568 - Commonwealth v. Evers

2. “When a prosecution is for a violation of the same statutes and is based on the same facts as a former prosecution, it is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal. There is an acquittal if the prosecution resulted in a finding of not guilty by the trier of fact or in a determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. A finding of guilty of a lesser included offense is an acquittal of a greater inclusive offense, although the conviction is subsequently set aside.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 278 - Commonwealth v. Larkins

3. “the waiver of a constitutional right must be made knowingly and intelligently; to be a knowing and intelligent waiver, the defendant must have been aware of both the right and the risks of forfeiting the same. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Commonwealth v. Barnette, 445 Pa. 288 , 285 A.2d 141 (1971), Commonwealth v. Mallon, 279 Pa.Super. 350 , 421 A.2d 234 (1980). Waiver of a constitutional right cannot be presumed from a silent record, and the presumption must always be against waiver of a constitutional right.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 393 Pa. Super. 611 - Commonwealth v. Nelson