401 Pa. Super. 560 - Commonwealth v. Mayfield’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 408 Pa. Super. 435 - Commonwealth v. Murray (1991), Commonwealth v. Rivers (1994)
44 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Commonwealth v. Rose · Commonwealth v. Rose · Commonwealth v. Myrick · Commonwealth v. Tervalon
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“; and (3) defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or to avoid the danger. Id. at 1071. The court found that defendant never denied using deadly force (which in Pennsylvania includes the mere brandishing of a knife) but rather denied only that he caused the victim's injury. Id. at 1077. The court observed that”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is the specific denial of the use of deadly force for one's own protection which precludes the claim of self-defense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Commonwealth’s witnesses testified that appellant pointed the gun at the victim. Only appellant claimed the victim pointed the gun at him. He testified that as he struggled to wrestle the pistol free, it discharged. At best appellant’s explanation suggests that the killing may have been accidental. However, it also destroys the second element of self-defense; that appellant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. When appellant was specifically asked upon cross-examination if he had been acting in self-defense, appellant conceded that he had not. At no time was there any testimony that appellant intentionally fired the gun in an attempt to defend himself. The jury was presented with the possible explanation of accidental death; the judge’s charge adequately explained that a finding of not guilty of any degree of homicide was required if the jury chose to believe appellant’s story. Clearly, appellant’s trial counsel realized that an assertion of self-defense was not supported by, nor compatible with the testimony. It would have been an empty gesture for defense counsel to object to the court’s charge.”
2 later decisions 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.