Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer (1982), Commonwealth v. D'Amato (1987)
139 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 Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Commonwealth v. Hubbard · Commonwealth v. Triplett · Commonwealth v. Perkins · Commonwealth v. Lipscomb
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297 , 284 A.2d 748 (1971), we said testimony as to the victim’s character is admissible for the following purposes: (1) to corroborate the defendant’s alleged knowledge of the victim’s violent character to corroborate the defendant’s testimony that he had a reasonable belief his life was in danger and (2) to prove the allegedly violent propensities of the victim to show he was the aggressor. We further noted that, generally, character can be proved only by reputation evidence. In Commonwealth v. Darby, 473 Pa. 109 , 373 A.2d 1073 (1977), we held that convictions and violent acts of a victim which did not result in conviction, of which the defendant had knowledge, could be introduced for the first purpose mentioned in Commonwealth v. Amos, supra. We further held, however, that violent acts which did not result in conviction could not be offered for the second purpose announced in Commonwealth v. Amos, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Stewart, 483 Pa. 176 n. 4 , 394 A.2d 968 n. 4 (1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] district attorney must have reasonable latitude in fairly presenting a case to the jury and that he or she must be free to present his or her argumehts with ‘logical force and vigor.’ Commonwealth v. Cronin, supra, 464 Pa. [138] at 143, 346 A.2d [59] at 62 [(1975) ]. Furthermore, the district attorney may always argue to the jury that the evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt. Commonwealth v. Capalla [ 322 Pa. 200 , 185 A. 203 (1936) ], supra; Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 316 Pa. 129 , 173 A. 653 (1934). Finally, the prejudicial effect of the district attorney’s remarks must be evaluated in the context in which they occurred. Commonwealth v. Perkins, 473 Pa. 116 , 373 A.2d 1076 (1977) (plurality opinion); Commonwealth v. Crittenton, 326 Pa. 25 , 191 A. 358 (1937).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.