well-reasoned analysis in Pennsylvania

2017Furthermore, "the evidence at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact- finder is free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt 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.” Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924, 928 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2017Furthermore, "the evidence at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact- finder is free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt 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.” Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924, 928 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2026See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), abrogated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

2026See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), abrogated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

2025Id. at 161 (Wecht, J., concurring) (“In light of the majority’s well-reasoned analysis today, it seems quite clear that the above- quoted language from Duncan is not faithful to our Constitution and its precedents, at least within the context of Article I, Section 1.”).

2025Id. at 161 (Wecht, J., concurring) (“In light of the majority’s well-reasoned analysis today, it seems quite clear that the above- quoted language from Duncan is not faithful to our Constitution and its precedents, at least within the context of Article I, Section 1.”).

2018The Troopers were lawfully present pursuant to the emergency aid exception, and "the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities." Mincey , 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (citing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 509-510, 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) ; Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (parallel citations omitted) ).

2018The Troopers were lawfully present pursuant to the emergency aid exception, and "the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities." Mincey , 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (citing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 509-510, 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) ; Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (parallel citations omitted) ).

2018The Troopers were lawfully present pursuant to the emergency aid exception, and "the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities." Mincey , 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (citing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 509-510, 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) ; Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (parallel citations omitted) ).

2018The Troopers were lawfully present pursuant to the emergency aid exception, and "the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities." Mincey , 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (citing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 509-510, 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) ; Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (parallel citations omitted) ).

2025Hosp., 267 Pa.Super. 581,584 , 407 A.2d 394, 396 (1979).

2025Hosp., 267 Pa.Super. 581,584 , 407 A.2d 394, 396 (1979).

2023See Bradley, supra. With respect to Appellant’s issues five, six, seven, eight, ten, and twelve, after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we agree with the well-reasoned analysis set forth in the trial court’s opinion.

2021See [Commonwealth v.] Hennigan, 753 A.2d [245,] 254 [(Pa. Super. 2000)] (“The criminal intent necessary to establish accomplice liability is identical to the criminal intent necessary to establish conspiracy”); Commonwealth v. Allen, 625 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“Proof of a conspiracy requires a showing that the defendant reached an agreement with a coconspirator to commit a crime.

2021See id.

2021Kurian v. Anisman, 851 A.2d 152, 161 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis in original). - 10 - J-A29034-20 With these Rules and case law in mind and after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the well-reasoned analysis of the Honorable James A. Gibbons, we conclude Appellant’s first issue merits no relief.

2021See PCRA Opinion, 12/4/20, at 7-8 (setting forth the relevant precedent regarding weight of the evidence issues and explaining why Appellant’s conviction did not shock the court’s conscience); id. at 8-9 (reiterating the case law governing sufficiency appeals and citing to relevant case law to support its finding that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the convictions); see also - 10 - J-A15011-21 Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1214 (Pa. 2006) (“[C]ounsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim[.]”).

2020Thus, even if we agreed with Bogus’ premise that the video met the definition of “unfairly prejudicial” because it “impacted the jury’s ability to decide material issues in the case on a proper basis and without undue influence,” Bogus’ Brief at 10, it would not logically follow from that premise that the trial court irrationally “weigh[ed] ____________________________________________ 3 “‘Unfair prejudice’ means a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury’s attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.” Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403 Commen

2020See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212, 1220 (Pa.Super. 2009) (explaining that evidence is not prohibitively prejudicial simply because it is harmful to a defendant).

2018Ergo, we conclude that Ferraro has failed "to show that the legitimate reasons proffered by the employer were pretexts for what, in reality, was a discriminatory motivation ." Kroptavich , 795 A.2d at 1055 (emphasis added).

2017See Commonwealth v. Hammond, 953 A.2d 544, 559 (Pa.Super. 2008) (where the witness was not present during the shooting, and could not testify regarding the encounter, the witness’ testimony would not have been beneficial to the defense, thus trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to call the witness).

2017See Penn, supra. In his next issue, Appellant contends that he is entitled to a new trial as a result of the trial court’s restriction on his cross-examination of Commonwealth witness Tracey Cobb concerning an allegedly false allegation of rape Josephita made against Cobb’s husband on Facebook.

2017Commonwealth v. Parker, 104 A.3d 17, 26 (Pa. Super. 2014).4 The trial court provided the following well-reasoned analysis in addressing Appellant’s claim that record evidence countering those statements should have been sent back with the jury as well: All of these witnesses’ statements were admitted as substantive evidence and not solely for purposes of impeachment.

2016First, we note the PCRA court explicitly found Mack’s testimony incredible. “[S]uch credibility findings, if supported by the record, are binding on this Court.” Treiber, 121 A.3d at 471 (citations omitted).