424 Pa. Super. 499 - Commonwealth v. Kunkle’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 435 Pa. Super. 509 - Commonwealth v. Poindexter (1994), 437 Pa. Super. 471 - Commonwealth v. Davis (1994)
27 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 Kremer v. Grant · Lavelle v. Koch · Commonwealth v. Paquette · Commonwealth v. Stanley · Commonwealth v. Griscavage
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether the application of the Rape Shield Law violates a defendant’s constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, this court has recently held: 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. 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.’ 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Evidence of victim’s sexual conduct; “(a) General rule — evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct shall not be admissible in prosecutions under this chapter except evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent of the alleged victim is at issue and such evidence is otherwise admissible pursuant to the rules of evidence.” 18 Pa.C.S. §3104.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person commits a felony of the first degree when he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person ... who is less than 16 years of age.”
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.