Commonwealth v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 6117. Altering or obliterating marks of identification (a) Offense defined.—No person shall change, alter, remove, or obliterate the name of the maker, model, manufacturer’s number, or other mark of identification on any firearm. (b) Presumption.—Possession of any firearm, upon which any such mark shall have been changed, altered, removed, or obliterated, shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has changed, altered, removed, or obliterated the same. Act of December 6,1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6, 1973.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. $259.00 Cash U.S. Currency · 297 Pa. Super. 467 - Commonwealth v. Ricketts

2. “No evidence was introduced indicating when the crime of obliteration occurred. Nor was evidence presented establishing when or the circumstances in which ap-pellee came into possession of the firearm. The Commonwealth presented no evidence that appellee had the technical capacity to effect the crime with which he was charged. Indeed, the Commonwealth’s expert witness testified that obliteration may have occurred over forty-five years ago. In these circumstances it is at least as reasonable to suppose that appellee, a law enforcement official, in the course of his official duties came upon and acquired the weapon in an already altered condition as it is to conclude appellee obliterated the serial numbers after he came into possession. As the trial court observed, ‘to apply subsection (b) of § 6117 under the facts of this case would be to allow an arbitrary and tenuous inference be drawn without indicia of validity in logic or reason or experience.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. Taggart

3. “An inference is no more than a logical tool enabling the trier of fact to proceed from one fact to another, if the trier believes that the weight of the evidence and the more experiential accuracy of the inference warrant so doing. Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 447 Pa. 91, 105-06 , 288 A.2d 727, 735-36 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 867 , 93 S.Ct. 164 , 34 L.Ed.2d 116 (1972). Accord Commonwealth v. Mason, 483 Pa. 409 , 397 A.2d 408 (1979).”

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