Commonwealth v. Laich’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Commonwealth v. Boczkowski (2004), Commonwealth v. Reid (2002)
63 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 Griffith v. United States · Gomez v. Dade County School Board · Speth v. New Jersey · Mims v. Browning Manufacturing · Lage v. United States
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis or; (2) The erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence or; (3) The properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial affect of the error so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is true that the declaration perhaps tends to establish that the [declarant-victim] was fearful of the Thorntons. However, the [declarant-victim’s] state of mind was not a matter in issue in this case. It was appellant’s state of mind, not that of the victim, which was material to establish the degree of guilt, if any, on the charge of criminal homicide. Only when the declaration is considered for the truth of the matter asserted, that appellant and his brother “were after” the [declarant-victim], does the declaration become relevant, that is, both material to and probative of appellant’s intent to kill. However, when considered for its substantive truth, the declaration, although relevant, is incompetent and hence inadmissible because it is hearsay not within any exception. Thus, appellant’s objection to admission of the declaration should have been sustained and the testimony excluded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Pursuant to the state of mind hearsay exception, where a declarant’s out-of-court statements demonstrate [the de-clarant’s] state of mind, are made in a natural manner, and are material and relevant, they are admissible pursuant to the exception. Out-of-court declarations that fall within the state of mind hearsay exception are still subject to general evidentiary rules governing competency and relevancy. Accordingly, whatever purpose the statement is offered for, be it to show the declar-ant’s intention, familiarity, or sanity, that purpose must be a “factor in issue,” that is, relevant. Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, if it tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or if it supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact.”
1 later decision 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.