389 Pa. Super. 417 - Commonwealth v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, it must be demonstrated that the underlying claim is of arguable merit. Next, it must be determined whether counsel's choice of action had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client's interests. Finally, a showing must be made of how counsel's choice of action prejudiced the client. . . . The law presumes that counsel was effective, so that the burden of establishing ineffectiveness rests squarely upon the defendant.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 426 Pa. Super. 167 - Commonwealth v. Swinson · 428 Pa. Super. 156 - Commonwealth v. Roberts

2. “[T]here sometimes exist special circumstances which operate as exceptions to the general rule and bring the case within the equally well established principle that evidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to prove (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme, plan or design embracing commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others; or (5) 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, (citation omitted). When the evidence is relevant and important to one of these five issues, it is generally conceded that the prejudicial effect may be outweighed by the probative value, (footnote omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 426 Pa. Super. 167 - Commonwealth v. Swinson

3. “[e]ven if a particular exception applies, the trial court must balance the need for the evidence against its potential prejudice in order to determine its admissibility. Commonwealth v. Shirey, 333 Pa.Super. 85 , 481 A.2d 1314 (1984), appeal after remand, 343 Pa.Super. 189 , 494 A.2d 420 (1985) overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Anderson, 379 Pa.Super. 589 , 550 A.2d 807 (1988). A trial court’s decision to admit evidence of other crimes committed by a defendant will not be reversed on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Green, 351 Pa.Super. 170 , 505 A.2d 321 (1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 424 Pa. Super. 73 - Commonwealth v. Holloman