397 Pa. Super. 310 - Commonwealth v. Schauffler’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably 421 Pa. Super. 270 - Commonwealth v. Rightley (1992), 424 Pa. Super. 531 - Commonwealth v. Lewis (1993)
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Ohle · Commonwealth v. Floyd · Commonwealth v. Pope · Commonwealth v. Weiskerger
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General rule. — A public law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either: (1) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or (2) employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it. (b) Burden of proof. — Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment. (c) Exception. — The defense afforded by this section is unavailable when causing or threatening bodily injury is an element of the offense charged and the prosecution is based on conduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other than the person perpetrating the entrapment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We conclude that the appeal was nevertheless proper. The trial court should not have imposed sentence prior to the filing and disposition of defendant’s post-trial motions. The practice followed in this case has been condemned because it is in violation of established procedural law. Commonwealth v. Shinn, 368 Pa.Super. 436 , 439 n. 1, 534 A.2d 515 , 516 n. 1 (1987); Commonwealth v. Hurst, supra, [ 367 Pa.Super. 214 , 532 A.2d 865 (1987)]; Commonwealth v. Eliason, 353 Pa.Super. 321, 323 , 509 A.2d 1296, 1297 (1986). The proper procedure is to allow the defendant a period of ten days within which to file a motion for post-trial relief and to delay sentencing until the motion, if filed, has been decided. Commonwealth v. Shinn, supra; Commonwealth v. Pringle, 304 Pa.Super. 67 , 75 n. 1, 450 A.2d 103 , 107 n. 1 (1982). Because the trial court did not follow this procedure, we will not quash the defendant’s appeal but will entertain it and dispose of it on the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]t is sufficient if the actor believes that he has agreed to confer or agreed to accept a benefit for the proscribed purpose, regardless of whether the other party actually accepts the bargain in any contract sense. ... The evils of bribery are fully manifested by the actor who believes that he is conferring a benefit in exchange for official action, no matter how the recipient views the transaction.... Each defendant should be judged by what he thought he was doing and what he meant to do, not by how his actions were received by the other party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Castillo
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.