Commonwealth v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 43 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “I shall now define for you murder in the second degree which is known as felony murder. A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while the defendant was engaged as a principal or a co-conspirator in the perpetration of a felony. Perpetration of a felony is defined as the act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice or a co-conspirator in the' commission of or attempt to commit any one of six enumerated felonies of which robbery is one. Murder in the second degree, therefore, is known as felony murder and the malice necessary to make even an unintentional or accidental'killing murder is constructively inferred from the malice incident to- the perpetration of the initial felony. The malice of the initial felony attaches to whatever else the accused may do in connection therewith. • Under the felony murder rule, the killing need not even be done by the defendant in a particular case, but it may have been done by an accomplice or co-conspirator acting in furtherance of the felonious undertaking. In order to find the defendant guilty of. murder in the second degree, you must find that the Commonwealth has established beyond a reasonable doubt, number one, that the defendant or an accomplice or co-conspirator caused the death of another person; and, two, that the killing occurred while the defendant, an accomplice or co-conspirator was engaged in the commission of a felony. And this underlying felony here is alleged to be robber”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Roane · 2016 Pa. Super. 124 - Commonwealth v. Roane

2. “... [t]he responsibility of persons, other than the slayer, for a homicide committed in the perpetration of a felony require[s] proof of a conspiratorial design by the slayer and the others to commit the underlying felony and of an act by the slayer causing death which was in furtherance of the felony. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Allen [ 475 Pa. 165 , 379 A.2d 1335 ], supra; Commonwealth v. Banks, 454 Pa. 401 , 311 A.2d 576 (1973); Commonwealth v. Williams, 443 Pa. 85 , 277 A.2d 781 (1971); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472 (1958). Cf. Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 445 Pa. 515 , 285 A.2d 154 (1971). (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 82 - Commonwealth v. Lambert · 320 Pa. Super. 533 - Commonwealth v. Middleton

3. “Were it otherwise, an accomplice to a robbery would be guilty of felony-murder if one of his cofelons during the course of the robbery looked out a window, saw a passerby down the street, and shot and killed him even though the passerby had no connection to the robbery whatsoever. Obviously, even though an accomplice knows or should know those connected to a robbery may be killed during the course of a dangerous felony, he should not he held accountable for that which he cannot at least foresee.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 Md. App. 555 - Watkins v. State