weight of evidence claim in Pennsylvania

2020See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a weight of evidence claim waived where the appellant failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; the appellant did not raise the issue orally or in writing prior to sentencing, and did not raise it in a post-sentence motion); Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598, 603 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“It is well settled that an [a]ppellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence is waived if the [a]ppellant has not filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects with the sentencing court.”) (citation om

2018See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a weight of evidence claim waived where the appellant failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) by raising it in a pre-sentence motion, did not address the issue orally prior to sentencing, and did not raise it in a post-sentence motion); Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598, 603 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“It is well settled that an [a]ppellant’s challenge to the -5- J-S22005-18 discretionary aspects of his sentence is waived if the [a]ppellant has not filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects with the

2019Generally, a weight of evidence claim is “addressed to the discretion of the judge who actually presided at trial.” In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76, 95 (Pa. 2014) (citations and quotation omitted).

2018Generally, a weight of evidence claim is “addressed to the discretion of the judge who actually presided at trial.” In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76, 95 (Pa. 2014) (citations and quotation omitted).

2025See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hitner, 910 A.2d 721 , 733 n. 17 (Pa. Super. 2006) (finding a weight of evidence claim preserved where the appellant “raised his specific weight of the evidence claims in his post- sentence motion and court-ordered [Rule] 1925(b) statement”) (citations omitted; emphasis added).

2018Accordingly, in order to reverse a trial court's ruling on a weight of evidence claim, it "must determine that the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to 'shock one's sense of justice."' Commonwealth v. Hitner, 910 A.2d 721, 733 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2018See Appellant’s Brief at 6-7, 11- 12; see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000) (discussing the elements of a weight of evidence claim).

2010It also instructed the court to consider plaintiff Rana Abuhadba’s (“Ms. Abuhadba”) motion for post-trial relief applying the weight of the evidence standard of review described in Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 320 , 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000) (holding that in a weight of evidence claim a trial court is not obligated to view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner).

2020A weight of evidence challenge “concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed.” -6- J-S74036-19 Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 758 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2020A weight of evidence challenge “concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 758 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2022On review of a trial court’s ruling as to a weight of evidence claim, this Court may only determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, “not the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 985 A.2d 886, 888 (Pa. 2009).

2022On review of a trial court’s ruling as to a weight of evidence claim, this Court may only determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, “not the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 985 A.2d 886, 888 (Pa. 2009).

2021See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); see also Commonwealth v. Wilson, -5- J-S19039-21 825 A.2d 710, 713 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same).

2021See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); see also Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713 (Pa.Super. 2013) (same).

2020Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 806 ( Pa. Super. 2003).

2017Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2020See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a weight of evidence claim waived where the appellant failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; the appellant did not raise the issue orally or in writing prior to sentencing, and did not raise it in a post-sentence motion); Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598, 603 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“It is well settled that an [a]ppellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence is waived if the [a]ppellant has not filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects with the sentencing court.”) (citation om

2018See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a weight of evidence claim waived where the appellant failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) by raising it in a pre-sentence motion, did not address the issue orally prior to sentencing, and did not raise it in a post-sentence motion); Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598, 603 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“It is well settled that an [a]ppellant’s challenge to the -5- J-S22005-18 discretionary aspects of his sentence is waived if the [a]ppellant has not filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects with the

2026See Commonwealth v. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 416 (Pa. Super. 2019) (appellant waived challenge to weight of evidence where appellate brief conflated weight and sufficiency claims and did not otherwise -9- J-S41035-25 develop weight claim); see also Spence, 290 A.3d at 309 (“A true weight of evidence challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions what evidence is to be believed.”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 416 (Pa. Super. 2019) (appellant waived challenge to weight of evidence where appellate brief conflated weight and sufficiency claims and did not otherwise -9- J-S41035-25 develop weight claim); see also Spence, 290 A.3d at 309 (“A true weight of evidence challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions what evidence is to be believed.”).

2026See Furness, 153 A.3d at 404 ; Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 281-82 .

2026See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); see also Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2024See id. “[T]he role of the trial judge is to -5- J-S16015-24 determine that ‘notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.’” Id., at 1055 (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000)).

2024See id. “[T]he role of the trial judge is to -5- J-S16015-24 determine that ‘notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.’” Id., at 1055 (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000)).

2023See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3); see also id., cmt. (establishing that “[t]he purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived”).

2023See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v. Butler, 729 A.2d 1134, 1140 (Pa. Super. 1999) (holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court). 4 To the extent that Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of her conviction, the trial court credited the Commonwealth’s evidence that Appellant failed to stop at a red light and failed field sobriety tests.

2021A conviction must be upheld if “the trier of fact could have found that each and ____________________________________________ 3 Even if the weight of evidence claim were preserved, we would find that it lacks merit for the reasons outlined in our discussion of Dent’s sufficiency claims. 4 A trial court’sdecision on the legal sufficiency of evidence of constructive possession will be upheld “so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003)(citations omitted). -6- J-S19039-21 every e

2021A conviction must be upheld if “the trier of fact could have found that each and ____________________________________________ 3 Even if the weight of evidence claim were preserved, we would find that it lacks merit for the reasons outlined in our discussion of Dent’s sufficiency claims. 4 A trial court’sdecision on the legal sufficiency of evidence of constructive possession will be upheld “so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003)(citations omitted). -6- J-S19039-21 every e

2021See Rivera, 238 A.3d at 498 ; Holley, 945 A.2d at n.4; Lee, 956 A.2d at 1029 .

2020“The purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived.” Id. (quoting Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 607).

2020In order preserve a weight of evidence claim, an appellant must raise the claim “either in a post-sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Mbewe, 203 A.3d 983, 988 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 191 A.3d 830, 834 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3)).

2020In order preserve a weight of evidence claim, an appellant must raise the claim “either in a post-sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Mbewe, 203 A.3d 983, 988 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 191 A.3d 830, 834 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3)).

2020Notwithstanding Appellant’s waiver of these claims, we would still deem them frivolous if considered on appeal. -6- J-S09011-20 In regard to Appellant’s weight of the evidence challenge, ordinarily such claims require review “of the exercise of [the trial court’s] discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. McClelland, 204 A.3d 436, 447 (Pa. Super. 2019).

2020Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 32 ( 1982).

2019Moreover, “[i]n order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” Id. at 546 (citation and quotation marks omitted). -7- J-S12019-19 A weight of evidence challenge “concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 758 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2018See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490-91 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that a weight of evidence claim must be preserved either in a written or oral pre-sentence motion, or in a post-sentence motion). 5 Even if the issue was preserved for our consideration, it is without merit based on the sound reasoning advanced by the trial court.