415 Pa. Super. 505 - Commonwealth v. Berkowitz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In viewing the evidence, we remain mindful that credibility determinations were a matter solely for the fact finder below. Commonwealth v. Murray, 408 Pa.Super. 435, 440-41 , 597 A.2d 111, 114 (1991) (en banc). On appeal, we must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 524 Pa. 564, 567 , 574 A.2d 590, 592 (1990); Commonwealth v. Ables, 404 Pa.Super. 169, 173-77 , 590 A.2d 334, 336-37 (1991); Commonwealth v. Rue, 362 Pa.Super. 470, 476 , 524 A.2d 973, 976 (1987); Commonwealth v. Sanders, 339 Pa.Super. 373, 378 , 489 A.2d 207, 209 (1985); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 316 Pa.Super. 152, 155 , 462 A.2d 840, 841 (1983); Commonwealth v. Combs, 298 Pa.Super. 527, 529 , 445 A.2d 113, 114 (1982). If a jury could have reasonably determined from the evidence adduced that all of the necessary elements of the crime were established, then the evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 417 Pa. Super. 636 - Commonwealth v. Johnson · 2002 Pa. Super. 96 - Commonwealth v. Delapaz

2. “In Pennsylvania, we have come to resolve this question through a relatively elaborate procedure which is designed to ensure that no evidence of the victim’s sexual history is introduced unless and until it can be established that to exclude such evidence would lay victim to the very raison d’etre of the trial itself: the pursuit of truth. The process begins with the defendant submitting a specific proffer to the court of exactly what evidence he or she seeks to admit and precisely why it is relevant to the defense. See Commonwealth v. Smith, supra [ 410 Pa.Super. 363 ], 599 A.2d [1340] at 1342 [ (1991) ], Commonwealth v. Nieves, supra, [ 399 Pa.Super. 277 ,] 582 A.2d [341] at 347 [ (1990), allocatur denied, 529 Pa. 633 , 600 A.2d 952 (1991) ]. This procedure forces the defendant to frame the precise issues and interests involved, and prevents him or her from embarking upon “fishing expedition style intrusions on Rape Shield Law protections.” Id., 582 A.2d at 349 . Where the proffer is but vague and conjectural, evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct will be excluded and no further inquiry need be entertained. Id.; Commonwealth v. Troy, 381 Pa.Super. 326, 335 , 553 A.2d 992, 996-97 (1989) [, allocatur denied 525 Pa. 626 , 578 A.2d 413 (1990) ] (plurality).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 424 Pa. Super. 499 - Commonwealth v. Kunkle