Commonwealth v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion of the trial court and we will reverse on appeal only upon abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 552 Pa. 621 , 717 A.2d 468, 477 (1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 827 , 120 S.Ct. 78 , 145 L.Ed.2d 66 (1999). During the penalty phase, the Commonwealth may offer evidence to rebut a defendant’s mitigating evidence of good character. Commonwealth v. Harris, 550 Pa. 92 , 703 A.2d 441, 451 (1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1015 , 119 S.Ct. 538 , 142 L.Ed.2d 447 (1998) (upholding Commonwealth’s introduction of several statements made by an appellant to rebut appellant’s character evidence that he was a nice person and amenable to rehabilitation); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 521 Pa. 188 , 555 A.2d 846, 858 (1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 215 , 112 L.Ed.2d 175 (1990) (holding that Commonwealth’s introduction of statements made by appellant and his Black Panther membership to rebut appellant’s character evidence that he was a peaceful and genial man).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Poplawski, R., Aplt.

2. “[T]he demeanor of a defendant, including his apparent remorse, is a proper factor to be considered by a jury in the sentencing phase of a capital case. Recognizing that the sentencing phase of trial has a different purpose than the guilt determination phase, and that the privilege against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence has no direct application to the latter phase, this Court has held that comment upon a defendant’s failure to show remorse is permitted at least where the comment does not amount to an extended tirade focusing undue attention on the factor of remorse.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Fletcher

3. “We do not read the statute as limiting the scope of the sentencing hearing to this extent. The legislature has directed that “[I]n the sentencing hearing, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant and admissible on the question of the sentence to be imposed and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances specified in subsections (d) and (e).” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(a)(2).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Harris