Commonwealth v. Shively’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) To complete the story of the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings. (2) To prove the existence of a larger plan, scheme, or conspiracy, of which the crime on trial is a part. (3) To prove other crimes by the accused so nearly identical in method as to earmark them as the handiwork of the accused. (4) To show a passion or propensity for unusual and abnormal sexual relations. (5) To show, by similar acts or incidents, that the act in question was not performed inadvertently, accidentally, involuntarily, or without guilty knowledge. (6) To establish motive. (7) To establish opportunity, in the sense of access to or presence at the scene of the crime or in the sense of possessing distinctive or unusual skills or abilities employed in the commission of the crime charged. (8) To show, without considering motive, that defendant acted with malice, deliberation, or the requisite specific intent. (9) To prove identity. (10) To impeach an accused who takes the witness stand by introducing past convictions.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Bidwell · Commonwealth v. Bryant

2. “[w]e have held that even if evidence of prior criminal activity is admissible under Commonwealth v. Fortune [ 464 Pa. 367 , 346 A.2d 783 (1975)], supra, said evidence will be rendered inadmissible if it is too remote. Commonwealth v. Brown, 482 Pa. 130 , 393 A.2d 414 (1978). Remoteness, in our view, is but another factor to be considered in determining if the prior crime tends to show that the same person committed both crimes. The degree of similarity between the two incidents necessary to prove common identity of the perpetrator is thus inversely proportional to the time span between the two crimes.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hawkins · Commonwealth v. Clayton

3. ““I dissent. Six day [sic] after appellee’s release from prison where he was serving a three year term for forcible sodomy, he is again accused of forcibly raping and sodomizing another young girl. Both victims were approximately 20 years of age; both victims were in or entering their automobiles at the time they were approached by the perpetrator; both victims were forced with deadly weapons to accompany the assailant to a secluded country area; and both victims were ordered to assume crouching positions (one kneeling on all fours and one leaning over the front seat of an automobile) which exposed their genitalia from the rear for the assailant. In my opinion, the circumstances surrounding these crimes are sufficiently similar, and the time frame, considered in light of appellee's incarceration, sufficiently small, that appellee's conviction of the first offense was admissible at his trial for the second. “Consequently, I would reverse the order of the Superior Court and affirm the judgments of sentence.” Shively, 424 A. 2d at 1260 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 135 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Friedrich