401 Pa. Super. 188 - Commonwealth v. Mignogna’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[J]udieial inquiry in each instance should focus on the circumstances attending the defendant’s invocation of his or her right to silence, as well as the circumstances attending any further attempt at questioning. Hence, the test should ask whether the official purpose of resuming questioning was to entice the arrestee to abandon his right to remain silent, or simply to find out whether he or she had a change of mind. Only then can it be concluded whether, in fact, the defendant’s ‘ “right to cut off questioning” was “scrupulously honored.” ’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 410 Pa. Super. 324 - Commonwealth v. Henry · 2009 Pa. Super. 78 - Commonwealth v. Harris

2. “[W]hether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 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 means of 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 the ■witnesses and the weight to be afforded the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. (Citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 416 Pa. Super. 23 - Commonwealth v. Price

3. “While we agree that Jones requires the provision .of a heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter instruction to a jury upon request and even in the absence of evidence to support it, we observe that the principle of Jones was greatly eroded by the supreme court in Commonwealth v. Carter [citation omitted].... [S]ince Carter overruled Jones only as to the issuance of an instruction on section 2503(b) [unreasonable belief voluntary manslaughter], we have held that we are obligated to apply the rule of Jones where a request for a heat-of-passion instruction has been made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 439 Pa. Super. 642 - Commonwealth v. Browdie