Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 97 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Recent’ is a relative term. Whether possession is recent, and how recent it is, are normally questions of fact for the trier of fact . .. and require that the trier of fact consider the nature and kind of goods involved, the quantity of goods, the lapse of time from theft and possession, and the ease with which such goods can be assimilated into trade channels, as well as other circumstances relevant in any given case. . . . “So too, whether possession of goods is unexplained is also a question of fact. This is so because normally the Commonwealth will not offer an explanation for the accused’s possession; but even if the accused fails to offer evidence, the trier of fact may still consider the circumstances of possession as presented by the Commonwealth as suggest ing an explanation for the possession. But if the trier of fact does not so consider the circumstances, he may then consider the possession as unexplained where the accused offers no evidence of explanation. This is not an infringement on the accused’s right against self-incrimination, Barnes v. United States, supra, and while the practical effect of allowing the inference from unexplained possession may in many cases be to shift the burden of coming forward with the evidence, at least as to receiving stolen goods and the inference of guilty knowledge, it is permissible so long as the inference is considered in accordance with the'burden on the Commonwealth to establish every element of the crime beyond a reason”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 238 - Commonwealth v. Robinson · 287 Pa. Super. 479 - Commonwealth v. Randall

2. “(a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of assault if he: (1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; (3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 268 Pa. Super. 326 - Commonwealth v. Diamond · Commonwealth v. Scudder

3. “[O]ther circumstances involved in any given case may also be considered by the trier of fact in determining if the inference [of guilty knowledge] may properly be drawn from the unexplained possession. Amongst such circumstances are the accused’s conduct at arrest and his conduct while in possession of the goods, as well as, the accused’s relationship, if any, with the victim of the theft. Once the inference is properly drawn by the trier of fact and pursuant to the understanding that it cannot be drawn unless he is convinced that the unexplained possession is so recent as to convince him of the inferred fact beyond a reasonable doubt and his conviction of the same is not weakened below this standard by other circumstances, an appellate court may not reverse unless, after considering the evidence, it believes a juror or judge, acting in a reasonable and rational manner, could not have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 351 Pa. Super. 43 - Commonwealth v. Dunlap