Commonwealth v. Vives’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We recently had the opportunity to outline the definition of an affirmative defense in a criminal case and, more importantly, the effects of such a label on the parties’ respective burdens. Commonwealth v. Cabral, 443 Mass. 171, 178-182 (2005). ... See Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 223.1(3)(b) (1980) (‘It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for theft that the actor . . . acted under an honest claim of right to the property or service involved . . .’). . . . [Here], the defendant’s argument that he honestly and reasonably believed that he was collecting a debt was an affirmative defense. “The label of affirmative defense does not relieve the Commonwealth of its burden of proof, however. Because the honest and reasonable claim defense addresses an element of the crime charged, that of the defendant’s intent to steal, . . . the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the defendant.... The Commonwealth’s burden to disprove the affirmative defense of honest and reasonable claim arises once the defendant has met his own ‘burden of production.’ . . . Thus, if any view of the evidence would support a factual finding that the defendant was acting as creditor to the victim’s debtor, the defendant has met his burden of production and it is incumbent on the Commonwealth to disprove the defense.” (Emphases added.)”

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

2. “any view of the evidence would support a factual finding that the defendant [had a prescription for the pills], the defendant has met his burden of production and it is incumbent on the Commonwealth to disprove the defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1130 - Commonwealth v. Bly

3. “If evidence of self-defense is present, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Mass. App. Ct. 486 - Commonwealth v. Ryan