324 Pa. Super. 61 - Commonwealth v. Capitolo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The actor must believe his actions to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another which is greater than that harm or evil in which his conduct will result. This subjective belief must be held honestly and sincerely. 18 Pa.C.S. § 503(a)(1). (2) Such a belief must also be determined to be an objectively reasonable one to hold. 18 Pa.C.S. § 501. (3) No law “defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved ...” 18 Pa.C.S. § 503(a)(2). (4) “[A] legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed [must] not otherwise plainly appear.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 503(a)(3).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 325 Pa. Super. 242 - Commonwealth v. Berrigan · Commonwealth v. Capitolo

2. “By limiting appellants’ evidence to their own testimony of their reasons for committing the trespass, the trial court — as it recognized it was doing — effectively denied appellants the opportunity to prove justification. For as already discussed, it was not enough for appellants to prove that they believed that “the harm or evil sought to be avoided [by their conduct] [was] greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining [their conduct as criminal trespass].” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503(a)(1). They had to prove that they reasonably so believed. And they could not prove their reasonableness without proving what in fact “the harm or evil sought to be avoided” was. A defendant may believe that a nuclear reactor is likely to melt down and cause a catastrophic accident, or that radiation leakages are causing cancer and poisoning the reservoir. But without any basis in fact these beliefs cannot be reasonable. By rejecting appellants’ offer of the expert testimony and documentary evidence summarized in their offer of proof, the trial court precluded appellants from proving that their beliefs did have a basis in fact. Thus the court precluded appellants from proving that their beliefs were reasonable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 325 Pa. Super. 242 - Commonwealth v. Berrigan

3. “Appellants offered to prove that their conduct met requirements of the defense of justification____ The trial court rejected Appellants’ offer. In doing so the court made plain its belief that even if Appellants had been permitted to present their evidence, they would not have been able to prove that their trespass was justified. Perhaps so. But the jury should have been allowed to appraise Appellants’ evidence. Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 324 Pa.Superior Ct. 61, 471 A.2d 462 (Pa.Superior Ct.1984) at 464.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Capitolo