Commonwealth v. Lasch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 90 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Two or more offenses, of any grade, other than murder, may be charged in the same indictment if they are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. There shall be a separate count for each offense charged.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 315 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth v. Courts · 265 Pa. Super. 159 - Commonwealth v. Rose

2. ““Because proof that a person has committed one crime — or even many crimes — is not in itself proof that he has committed another, and because there is a genuine danger that a jury may use the evidence of a separate crime to find a defendant guilty of the crime of which he is accused when it might not do so if restricted to the evidence of that crime alone, it is a well established rule of law that ordinarily evidence of other crimes is inadmissible in the trial of a separate crime. [Citations omitted.] But although the law is zealous to protect the defendant, who must be presumed innocent of the crime with which he is charged, from prejudgment, it is also concerned that the prosecution not be precluded from introducing legitimate evidence that is relevant to the judgment to be made with regard to the offense actually being tried.” Commonwealth v. Lasch, 464 Pa. 573, 585-6 , 347 A.2d 690, 696 (1973) [per Eagen, J., now C. J., with two Justices concurring]. To that end, while “[i]t is black letter law that evidence of one crime is inadmissible against a defendant being tried for another crime, because the fact of the commission of one offense is not proof of the commission of another. [Citation omitted.] [T]here sometimes exist special circumstances which operate as exceptions to the general rule and bring the case within the equally well established principle that evidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to prove (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) absence of mistake or a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Rose

3. ““1. Separate offenses which may be joined in a single indictment under Pa.R.Crim.P. 219(b), if in separate indictments, may be consolidated for trial, provided the criteria of the Rule is met. “2. The criteria of the Rule is that the offenses be ‘of the same or similar character or based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions con nected together or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan’ absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant. “3. Three types of prejudice may be present, particularly with respect to ‘similar character’ offenses but not arising out of a single transaction which would result in improper joinder: (a) where the defendant may become embarrassed or confounded in his defense, (b) where the jury may use the evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition on the part of the defendant to find guilt of the other crime or crimes charged, and (c) where the jury may cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when if considered separately, it would not so find. “In finding that no prejudice existed, the Court relied on the rule that where evidence of other crimes has an independent relevance to the crime being tried — where it tends to prove such elements as motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme, plan or design embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that the proof of one tends to prove the others — it is admissible for such lim”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 254 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Bundridge