375 Pa. Super. 261 - Commonwealth v. Carbone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... it is well settled that the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body raises a permissible inference of malice. [Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 554 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1070 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989 [ 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 ] (1978) ]. This inference has a dual purpose; it allows a jury to infer malice, Commonwealth v. Caye, 465 Pa. 98 , 348 A.2d 136 (1975); Commonwealth v. Boyd, 463 Pa. 343 , 344 A.2d 864 (1975), as well as a specific intent to kill, Commonwealth v. Toledo, 365 Pa.Super. 224 , 529 A.2d 480 (1987); Commonwealth v. Crowson, 488 Pa. 537 , 412 A.2d 1363 (1979). The finder of fact is not required to ignore this inference merely because the defendant testifies that he did not intend to take a person’s life. [Citations omitted.] Here, the Commonwealth relies on that inference of malice to justify the verdict. The jury was not required to disregard the inference merely because Carbone testified otherwise. However, the Commonwealth’s reliance on the inference from the fact of the stabbing is misplaced under the facts of this case. ... In this case, the inference of malice that would normally arise from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body of the deceased, absent further explanation, is negated by other evidence presented in this case by the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Caye, [supra]. ****** An inference of malice cannot be accepted in a vacuum. The law infers or presumes from the use of a deadly weapon, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 426 Pa. Super. 345 - Commonwealth v. Lee

2. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire trial record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 383 Pa. Super. 409 - Commonwealth v. Rivers

3. “It is important to note that the concept of malice is inconsistent with self-defense. In order to meet its burden of proof on the element of malice in a murder prosecution, the Commonwealth must exclude self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 552 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1069 , cert. denied. 439 U.S. 989 , 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 (1978). The existence of self-defense, or otherwise stated, the state's failure to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, precludes the jury from fully, reasonably and satisfactorily inferring the existence of malice. [ Commonwealth v.] Drum, [ 58 Pa. 9 ,] 16 (1868).”

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