Commonwealth v. Meals’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Facts of the current offense, including: (i) Whether the offense involved multiple victims, (ii) Whether the individual exceeded the means necessary to achieve the offense, (iii) The nature of the sexual contact with the victim, (iv) Relationship of the individual to the victim, (v) Age of the victim, (vi) Whether the offense included a display of unusual cruelty by the individual during the commission of the crime, (vii) The mental capacity of the victim. (2) Prior offense history, including: (i) The individual’s prior criminal record, (ii) Whether the individual completed any prior sentences, (iii) Whether the individual participated in available programs for sexual offenders. (3) Characteristics of the individual, including: (i) Age of the individual, (ii) Use of illegal drugs by the individual, (iii) Any mental illness, mental disability or mental abnormality, (iv) Behavioral characteristics that contribute to the individual’s conduct. (4) Factors that are supported in a sexual offender assessment field as criteria reasonably related to the risk of reof-fense.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Wolf · 2008 Pa. Super. 176 - Commonwealth v. Feucht

2. “Questions of evidentiary sufficiency present questions of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. In conducting sufficiency review, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, which prevailed upon the issue at trial.... The standard of proof governing the determination of SVP status, i.e., clear and convincing evidence, has been described as an intermediate test, which is more exacting than a preponderance of the evidence test, but less exacting than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.... The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 176 - Commonwealth v. Feucht · 2010 Pa. Super. 36 - Commonwealth v. Fuentes

3. “The basis for the majority's dismissal of the expert's diagnosis is flawed as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. As a matter of fact, [SOAB expert Gregory Loop] cited to more than the age of the victims in support of his opinion that appellee was a pedophile; he stressed also that multiple child victims were involved and that the offenses were committed over a period of time. The facts fully supported these points. The majority's discounting of the finding of pedophilia is also troubling because it ignores that Loop's expert opinion-that, to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, appellee was a pedophile-itself was evidence. To the extent appellee felt that the expert's "diagnosis" was not fully explained, did not square with accepted analyses of the disorder, or was simply erroneous, he certainly was free to introduce evidence to that effect and/or to argue to the factfinder that the Commonwealth's expert's conclusions should be discounted or ignored. But that argument would affect the weight, and not the sufficiency, of the expert's evidence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 228 - In the Interest of R.Y. · 2011 Pa. Super. 267 - In the Interest of D.Y.