Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 434 Pa. Super. 583 - Commonwealth v. Hunter

434 Pa. Super. 583 - Commonwealth v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Commonwealth v. Alexander · Commonwealth v. McCullum · 419 Pa. Super. 48 - Commonwealth v. Eaddy · 392 Pa. Super. 274 - Commonwealth v. Elrod · 297 Pa. Super. 193 - Commonwealth v. Reardon

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

  1. “As to the conspiracy charge, an eyewitness identified Appellant as the shooter and identified Walker as being with Appellant. A few days earlier, Appellant, again accompanied by Walker, tried unsuccessfully to pull Harris into the street, presumably to exact revenge against the individual Appellant concluded had robbed him. Then later Appellant and Walker together went looking for Harris in the neighborhood. At least two witnesses testified to seeing one or both men with guns on these earlier occasions. The white Impala they had been using was observed circling Harris’ residence. Later, Dorsey observed Appellant and Walker across the street from Harris’ residence with a gun. At all times Walker was with Appellant, his self-described best friend. [Walker] made a statement that he was going to “ride” with Appellant, a statement which, given the context, easily could be interpreted beyond its literal meaning. Given the totality of circumstances, it was not error for the jury to find Appellant and Walker conspired to commit the offenses for which Appellant was convicted[.] Regarding the Aggravated Assault charge, even assuming the evidence did not support that Harris was an intended target of Appellant, Appellant is incorrect in asserting that he cannot be convicted of Aggravated Assault on an unintended victim. Aggravated Assault is defined as follows: 2702. Aggravated assault (a) Offense defined.—A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (1) attempts to cause serious bodi”
    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.