Commonwealth v. Mutnik’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Offense defined.— (1) A person commits an offense if he issues or passes a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee. (b) Presumption. — For the purposes of this section as well as in any prosecution for theft committed by means of a bad check, an issuer is presumed to know that the check or order (other than a post-dated check or order) would not be paid, if: (1) the issuer had no account with the drawee at the time the check or order was issued; or (2) payment was refused by the drawee for lack of funds, upon presentation within 80 days after issue, and the issuer failed to make good within ten days after receiving notice of that refusal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 322 Pa. Super. 6 - Commonwealth v. Frank · 380 Pa. Super. 272 - Commonwealth v. Burruss

2. “... it is of some significance that the legislature omitted the specific intent to defraud from the definition of the bad check crime in the Crimes Code. Clearly the legislature understood the significance of these words because in the very same chapter in which the bad check charge is found the legislature saw fit to include an intent to defraud as an element of forgery, see 18 C.P.S.A. [Pa.C.S.A.] § 4101, in the crime of simulating objects of antiquity, see 18 C.P.S.A. [Pa.C.S.A.] § 4102, and in the fraudulent destruction, removal or concealment of recordable instruments, see 18 C.P.S.A. [Pa.C. S.A.] § 4103. See also 18 C.P.S.A. [Pa.C.S.A.] § 4104 defining tampering with records or identification. We believe, therefore, that by the omission of the specific element of intent to defraud from the bad check charge the legislature intended to denominate passing a check for which there are insufficient funds with knowledge of the issuer as a crime regardless of whether present consideration passes at the time of the passing of the check or not. 6 Pa.D. & C.3d at 723. Moreover, we are permitted to consider the prior act only when the words of the present statute are not explicit. When, as here, “the words of a statute are clear and free from all possible ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b) (1979 Pamphlet). We therefore hold that section ^105 does not require the Commonwealth to prove an intent to def”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 380 Pa. Super. 272 - Commonwealth v. Burruss

3. “(a) That the accused made, drew, uttered, or delivered a check, draft, or order for the payment of money payable to a named person or organization; (b) That the accused did so for the purpose or purported purpose of effecting the payment of a past due obligation or for some other purpose; (c) That the act was committed with intent to deceive; and (d) That at the time of making, drawing, uttering, or delivering of the instrument, the accused knew that the accused or the maker or drawer had not or would not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the bank or other depository for the payment thereof upon presentment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Woodcock