Commonwealth v. Wable’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 254 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 259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . Evidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to prove a common scheme, plan or design embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others or to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial, — in other words where there is such a logical connection between the crimes that proof of one will naturally tend to show that the accused is the person who committed the other." Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 82 , 114 A.2d 334, 336-37 (1955) (Emphasis added.)”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Bryant · Commonwealth v. Borschell

2. “One of our most fundamental and prized principles in the administration of criminal law is that a distinct crime, except under certain special circumstances, cannot be given in evidence against a defendant who is being tried for another crime. This is because the fact that a person has committed one offense is not proof that he has committed another and because the effect of such testimony upon a jury is nevertheless bound to create prejudice and an emotional reaction on their part against the defendant. It is held that such evidence is admissible only where the former alleged crime or crimes are of the same nature as the one under trial and indicate a general intent or design on the part of the accused to conduct, for example, a series of similar robberies, or murders, or sex offenses, or poisonings of persons in order to obtain their insurance money, or the like; in other words, the prior criminal act or acts are evidential only if clearly constituting part of a chain, system, composite plan or scheme.”

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

3. ““As recently as 1955, this Court in Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 86 , 114 A.2d 334 , speaking through Chief Justice Stem, said: ‘“The General rule* [the footnote states: ‘Italics throughout, ours’] is that the accused has no right to the inspection or disclosure before trial of evidence in the possession of the prosecution”: 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 1311, 1312, 1354, (citing eases from many jurisdictions)’ ”.”

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