Commonwealth v. Caban’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “.The standard.we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in, the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the -fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The.'Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 62 - Commonwealth v. Britton · Commonwealth v. Hewlett

2. “The concept of standing in a criminal search and seizure context empowers a defendant to assert a constitutional violation and thus seek to exclude or suppress the government’s evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rules under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. [U]nder Pennsylvania law, a defendant charged with a possessory offense has standing to challenge a search. To prevail in a challenge to the search and seizure, however, a defendant accused of a possessory crime must also establish, as a threshold matter, a legally cognizable expectation of privacy in the area searched. The constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all of the surrounding circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 60 - Commonwealth v. Brown

3. “Based upon Rogers and Kemp , we conclude that Trooper Jones adduced sufficient facts to establish reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot in this case. The car was owned by a third party not present in the vehicle, [the driver] acted nervously, the answers provided by [the driver] and [the appellant] to basic questions regarding their destination were inconsistent, and various masking agents, including air fresheners, canisters of perfume, and a bottle of Fabreze, were present in the vehicle. When considering the totality of the circumstances, we need not limit our inquiry to only those facts that clearly and unmistakably indicate criminal conduct. [Kemp.] Instead, “even a combination of innocent facts, when taken together, may warrant further investigation by the police officer.” Id. (quoting [Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d at 676 ]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 235 - Commonwealth v. Freeman