Commonwealth v. Bey’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 19 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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 221 - Commonwealth v. Dixon · 2010 Pa. Super. 36 - Commonwealth v. Fuentes

2. “[I]n reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the determination of SVP status, we will reverse the trial court only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to enable the trial court to determine that each element required by the statute has been satisfied. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. The reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 200 - Commonwealth v. Price

3. “The salient inquiry, mandated by the statute, therefore, in determining SVP status is identification of the impetus behind the commission of the offense; that is, whether it proceeds from a mental defect/personality disorder or another motivating factor. The answer to that question determines, at least theoretically, the extent to which the offender is likely to reoffend, and section 9795.4 provides the criteria by which such likelihood may be gauged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 38 - Commonwealth v. Plucinski