Commonwealth v. Belsar’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Davidson (2007), Commonwealth v. Jones (2006)
41 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 v. Anderson · Commonwealth v. Weakland · Commonwealth v. Williams · 394 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Ennis · 386 Pa. Super. 164 - Commonwealth v. Bell
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our concern ... is to avoid giving criminals a “volume discount” on crime. If multiple acts of criminal violence were regarded as part of one larger criminal transaction or encounter which is punishable only as one crime, then there would be no legally recognized difference between a criminal who robs someone at gunpoint and a criminal who robs the person and during the same transaction or encounter pistol whips him in order to effect the robbery. But in Pennsylvania, there is a legally recognized difference between these two crimes. The criminal in the latter case may be convicted of more than one crime and sentences for each conviction may be imposed where the crimes are not greater and lesser included offenses.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As § 2702(a)(1) declares, before an individual may be convicted of aggravated assault, that individual must “cause serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). 18 Pa. C.S. § 3701(a)(l)(i) simply does not require such a mental state when the “serious bodily injury” is inflicted. For robbery, it is enough that the perpetrator “inñicts serious bodily injury upon another” while “in the course of committing a theft.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(l)(i).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n all criminal cases, the same facts may support multiple convictions and separate sentences for each conviction except in cases where the offenses are greater and lesser included offenses. “The same facts” means any act or acts which the accused has performed and any intent which the accused has manifested, regardless of whether these acts and intents are part of one criminal plan, scheme, transaction or encounter, or multiple criminal plans, schemes!,] transactions!,] or encounters.”
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.