454 Pa. Super. 582 - Commonwealth v. Guy’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Commonwealth v. Cosnek (2003), 2002 Pa. Super. 32 - Commonwealth v. Fink (2002)
30 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 Lavelle v. Koch · 441 Pa. Super. 1 - Sprague v. Walter · Commonwealth v. Wharton · 439 Pa. Super. 227 - Commonwealth v. Urrutia · Commonwealth v. Spiewak
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidence tending to directly exculpate the accused by showing that the alleged victim is biased and thus has a motive to lie, fabricate, or seek retribution is admissible at trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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. (b) Evidentiary proceedings.-A defendant who proposes to offer evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct pursuant to subsection (a) shall file a written motion and offer of proof at the time of trial. If, at the time of trial, the court determines that the motion and offer of proof are sufficient on their faces, the court shall order an in camera hearing and shall make findings on the record as to the relevance and admissibilty of the proposed evidence pursuant to the standards set forth in subsection (a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to reconcile the effect of the statute in excluding evidence with the accused's sixth amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.