356 Pa. Super. 403 - Commonwealth v. Berta’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Now Section 6105] specifically states that a violation takes place if the firearm is under the control of the alleged actor. An operable firearm may be said to be under the control of the alleged actor even though it is a malfunctioning assembled firearm or a disassembled firearm, if the alleged actor has under his control the means to convert the inoperable firearm into an operable firearm. For example, a reasonable fact finder might conclude, under all of the circumstances that an operable firearm was under the control of the actor even though the stock, barrel, trigger housing group, or firing mechanism were in different rooms in the same apartment or might infer control if a damaged part were readily repairable. If it can reasonably be concluded that the actor owned, possessed or controlled an operable firearm, there is a risk of violence by the firing of a shot[,] which was the result sought to be avoided by [now Section 6105].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 38 - Commonwealth v. Stevenson

2. “... a reasonable fact finder may ... infer operability ... from an object which looks like, feels like, sounds like, or is like a firearm ... without direct proof of operability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 360 Pa. Super. 217 - Commonwealth v. Fitzhugh