397 Pa. Super. 507 - Commonwealth v. Owen’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Wheeler (2009), Commonwealth v. Huggins (2003)
69 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 Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Commonwealth v. Wojdak · McCleskey v. Kemp · Commonwealth v. Terry · Commonwealth of Pa. v. Mullen
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The quantity and quality of evidence presented there “should be such that if presented at trial in court, and accepted as true, the judge would be warranted in allowing the case to go to the jury.” Commonwealth ex rel. Scolio v. Hess, 149 Pa.Super. 371 , 27 A.2d 705 (1942). The Commonwealth’s burden at a preliminary hearing is to establish at least prima facie that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the one who committed it. Commonwealth v. Mullen, 460 Pa. 336 , 333 A.2d 755 (1975). This means that at a preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth must show the presence of every element necessary to constitute each offense charged and the defendant’s complicity in each offense. Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt is not required, nor is the criterion to show that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is possible if the matter is returned for trial. However, proof, which would justify a trial judge submitting the case to the jury at the trial of the case, is required. Inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence of record which would support a verdict of guilty are to be given effect, Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 235 Pa.Super. 106 , 340 A.2d 550 (1975), and the evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth’s case. Commonwealth v. Zeringo, 214 Pa.Super. 300 , 257 A.2d 692 (1969). Prosecutorial suspicion and conjecture are not evidence and are unacceptable as evidence. Our function is to take the facts proven by the Commonwealth at the preliminary hearing an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We have noted that, “[i]n the pre-trial setting, the focus of the habeas corpus hearing is to determine whether sufficient Commonwealth evidence exists to require a defendant to be held in government ‘custody’ until he may be brought to trial.” Commonwealth v. Morman, 373 Pa.Super. 360, 367 , 541 A.2d 356, 360 (1988). A pre-trial petition for a writ of habeas corpus thus is similar in purpose to a preliminary hearing. Id. at 365 , 541 A.2d at 359 . And, of course, “ ‘[t]he primary reason for the preliminary hearing is to protect an individual’s right against unlawful arrest and detention. It seeks to prevent a person from being imprisoned or required to enter bail for a crime which was never committed, or for a crime with which there is no evidence of his connection ...’” Id. (citations omitted). The Morman Court also made clear that, in making this pre-trial determination, the habeas court is not limited to reviewing the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing; instead, “the Commonwealth may present additional evidence at the habeas corpus stage in its effort to establish at least prima facie that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the person who committed it.” Id. at 365-66 , 541 A.2d at 359 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We should emphasize the limited nature of our holding. We are aware that prior decisions in this Commonwealth have held that a parking lot may be considered a trafficway for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Code. In all of these cases, however, there was a finding that the lot in question was open to the public.... In the case at bar, by contrast, there simply is no record evidence to support such a finding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.