444 Pa. Super. 9 - Commonwealth v. Namack’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well established that a bona fide, reasonable mistake of fact may, under certain circumstances, negate the element of criminal intent. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 304 (providing, inter alia, that ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact, for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse, is a defense if “the ignorance or mistake negatives the intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense”); Commonwealth v. Compel, 236 Pa.Super. 404 , 344 A.2d 701 (1975); Commonwealth v. Bollinger, 197 Pa.Super. 492, 179 A.2d 253, 255 (1962). “It is not necessary that the facts be as the actor believed them to be; it is only necessary that he have ‘a bona fide and reasonable belief in the existence of facts which, if they did exist, would render an act innocent.’ Commonwealth v. Lefever, 151 Pa.Super. 351 , 30 A.2d 364, 365 (1943). See generally, Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 , 72 S.Ct. 240 , 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952).” Commonwealth v. Compel, supra, at 702-03. When evidence of a mistake of fact is introduced, the Commonwealth retains the burden of proving the necessary criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Cottam, 420 Pa.Super. 311 , 616 A.2d 988, 1000-01 (1992). In other words, the Commonwealth must prove either the absence of a bona fide, reasonable mistake, or that the mistake alleged would not have negated the intent necessary to prove the crime charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 11 - Commonwealth v. Hamilton

2. “In any criminal prosecution, the Commonwealth has the unshifting burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the crime charged. The burden is neither increased nor diminished when a defendant attempts to disprove an element of the crime by introducing an affirmative defense. Accordingly, when charging a jury, a trial judge must communicate to the jury that when evidence of an affirmative defense is offered, the Commonwealth still has the burden to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the burden never shifts to the defendant. Moreover, the trial judge must state that the jury’s determination that the affirmative defense has not been established is essential to finding that the Commonwealth has met its burden.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. Matroni