Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
474 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 476 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Hubbard (1977), Commonwealth v. Kichline (1976)
474 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 Bruton v. United States · Commonwealth v. Clair · Commonwealth v. Allen · Commonwealth v. Agie · Commonwealth v. Rose
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 476 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . [E]ven where the language of the district attorney is intemperate, uncalled for and improper, a new trial is not necessarily required. Commonwealth v. Crittenton, 326 Pa. 25, 31 , 191 A. 358 (1937); Commonwealth v. McHugh, 187 Pa.Super. 568, 577 , 145 A.2d 896 (1958). The language must be such that its `unavoidable effect would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, so that they could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict.' Commonwealth v. Simon, 432 Pa. 386, 394 , 248 A.2d 289, 292 (1968). See also, Commonwealth v. Myers [sic], 290 Pa. 573 , 139 A. 374 (1927). The effect of such remarks depends upon the atmosphere of the trial, Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 406 Pa. 102, 110 , 176 A.2d 421 (1962); Commonwealth v. Del Giorno, 303 Pa. 509, 519 , 154 A. 786 (1931), and the proper action to be taken is within the discretion of the trial court."”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) The prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record. It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw. (b) It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor to express his personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant. (c) The prosecutor should not use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. (d) The prosecutor should refrain from argument which would divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling law, or by making predictions of the consequences of the jury’s verdict.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well established that an individual may not be convicted of murder unless the Commonwealth establishes every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. One such required element is the causal connection between the death and the criminal act. However, to permit evidence of a medical opinion as to cause of death to be considered by the trier of fact, it is only necessary that the witness entertain a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” for his conclusions.... “ ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is a legal standard. Medical causation and legal causation are qualitatively different in their application. Whether the Commonwealth’s evidence is sufficient to warrant a finding of causal connection is initially a legal question for the court, but whether it is persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt is for the jury to say.””
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.