419 Pa. Super. 122 - Commonwealth v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to find the Defendant guilty of this crime, you must find that the following two elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One, the Defendant caused serious bodily injury to [the victim]. Serious bodily injury, as I previously indicated, means impairment of physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent' disfigurement or protracted loss or impair ment of the function of any bodily member or organ. The second element of this crime of Aggravated Assault is the Defendant acted knowing — intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, provided it is also without lawful justification or excuse. A person acts intentionally with respect to serious bodily injury when it is their common — her conscious object or purpose to cause such injury. A person acts knowingly with respect to serious bodily injury when she is aware that it is practically certain that her conduct will cause such a result. A person acts recklessly with respect to serious bodily injury when she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that serious bodily injury will result from her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and the intent of the Defendant’s conduct and the circumstances known to her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the Defenda”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Myers

2. “The test in this Commonwealth for determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of an arrest warrant is the “totality of the circumstances.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [ 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983). In determining whether probable cause exists, a magistrate is not required to find a showing of criminal activity; mere probability of such criminal activity is sufficient for probable cause. Furthermore, the information offered to demonstrate probable cause must be viewed in “a common sense, nontechnical, ungrudging and positive manner.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 506 Pa. 262 , 484 A.2d 1383 (1984). Our duty on appeal is to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists.” Commonwealth v. Fromal, [ 392 Pa.Super. 100 ] 572 A.2d 711, 718 ( [Pa.Super.] 1990) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 238-239 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 ]). A trial court’s determination of probable cause is accorded the utmost deference on appeal. We must limit our inquiry to the information within the four corners of the affidavit submitted in support of probable cause when determining whether the warrant was issued upon probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 162 - Commonwealth v. Taylor

3. “Evidence of other crimes is generally inadmissible. Such evidence may, however, be admitted in certain circumstances where the evidence is relevant for some other legitimate purpose and not merely to prejudice the defendant by showing him or her to be a person of bad character. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423 , 555 A.2d 1264 (1989). A defendant’s other criminal acts may be introduced to prove motive; intent; absence of mistake or accident; a common scheme, plan, or design embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others; or to establish the identity of the person on trial as the person who committed the crime in issue. Commonwealth v. Billa, 521 Pa. 168 , 555 A.2d 835 (1989); Commonwealth v. Banks, 513 Pa. 318 , 521 A.2d 1 (1987).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 447 Pa. Super. 241 - Commonwealth v. Sneeringer