Commonwealth v. Jarman’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Commonwealth v. Barud (1996), Commonwealth v. MacPherson (2000)
127 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 McKnight v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Hardcastle · Commonwealth v. Funk · Commonwealth v. Mikulan · Commonwealth v. Meadows
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Commonwealth is not required to present expert testimony to prove that a driver operated a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.10% or greater.... Upon consideration of this issue, we find no reason to require the Commonwealth to present an expert witness in these matters. We hold that once the Commonwealth has established that the driver’s blood alcohol content reflects an amount above 0.10%, the Commonwealth has made a prima facie case under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3731(a)(4). At this point, the defendant is permitted to introduce expert testimony to rebut the Commonwealth’s prima facie evidence. If the defendant decides to rebut the prima facie evidence against him with expert testimony, then the Commonwealth may present its own expert to refute this testimony. [[Image here]] We find it unnecessary to require the Commonwealth to present expert testimony in cases where the driver has failed to rebut the Commonwealth’s pri-ma facie evidence that his blood alcohol content was 0.10% while operating a motor vehicle.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence^] we are required to view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner. The test is whether the evidence, when so viewed, is sufficient to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[Ojnce the Commonwealth has introduced evidence to establish that the defendant’s blood alcohol test registered at least .10 percent, the Commonwealth has made a pnma facie case under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(4).... I do not believe that the Commonwealth is required to present expert testimony to relate the test results back to the time of driving in order to prove its case. After the Commonwealth has introduced evidence to establish that the blood alcohol test met or exceeded the .10 percent threshold, the defendant would then be entitled to present expert testimony, if available, to rebut the Commonwealth’s pñma facie evidence that his blood alcohol level was at least .10 percent at the time he was operating a vehicle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.