reviewing challenge in Pennsylvania

2026A trial court reviewing a challenge to the weight given the evidence may grant relief only if “the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).

2026“Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Id. -7- J-S03004-26 A trial court reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence may grant relief only if “the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). “[A] true weight of the evidence challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the ve

2026The trial court’s denial of a weight claim “is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008); see Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906, 909 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that because the trial court “is in the best position to view the evidence presented,” an appellate court will give that court “the utmost consideration” when reviewing its weight determination).

2025A trial court reviewing a challenge to the weight given the evidence may grant relief only if “the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). -7- J-A18037-25 The trial court’s denial of a weight claim “is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906, 909 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that because

2026The trial court’s denial of a weight claim “is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008); see Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906, 909 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that because the trial court “is in the best position to view the evidence presented,” an appellate court will give that court “the utmost consideration” when reviewing its weight determination).

2025A trial court reviewing a challenge to the weight given the evidence may grant relief only if “the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). -7- J-A18037-25 The trial court’s denial of a weight claim “is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906, 909 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that because

2026Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 758 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2023Along these same lines, Appellant’s objection preserved this claim for review on direct appeal and Appellant makes no attempt to show why this evidence, even if erroneously admitted, requires a new trial.1 See Commonwealth v. Miles, 846 A.2d 132, 137-38 (Pa. Super. 2004) (setting forth the three grounds for finding that an erroneous evidentiary ruling was ____________________________________________ 1 We will extend to Appellant the benefit of assuming that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to address the issue on direct appeal, and thus, we cite the standard for reviewing this cla

2023See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 315 (Pa. 2014) (“As a general and practical matter, it is more difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim litigated through the lens of counsel ineffectiveness, rather than as a preserved claim of trial court error.”). - 14 - J-S01007-23 harmless and could not have contributed to the verdict).

2018See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342, 345 (Pa. Super. 2012): "[The reviewing Court] must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when 'viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

2015Main Street Development Group, Inc. v. Tinicum Township Board of Supervisors, 19 A.3d 21, 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

2011The standard for reviewing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion involves the following considerations: “whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.... [W]e must consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence of the defense as remains uncontradieted when read in the context of the record as a whole.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger [, 591 Pa. 1 ] 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 894 , 128 S.Ct. 211 , 169 L.Ed.2d 158 (2007).

2011The standard for reviewing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion involves the following considerations: “whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.... [W]e must consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence of the defense as remains uncontradieted when read in the context of the record as a whole.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger [, 591 Pa. 1 ] 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 894 , 128 S.Ct. 211 , 169 L.Ed.2d 158 (2007).

2005See also Parker v. Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93 , 540 A.2d 313 (1988) (holding that enrolled bill doctrine did not preclude this Court from reviewing claim of failure to comply with Article III, Section 3); Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff 'd, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000) (holding that claims of failure to comply with Article III, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not barred by the enrolled bill and political question doctrines and Speech and Debate Clause).

2005See also Parker v. Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93 , 540 A.2d 313 (1988) (holding that enrolled bill doctrine did not preclude this Court from reviewing claim of failure to comply with Article III, Section 3); Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff 'd, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000) (holding that claims of failure to comply with Article III, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not barred by the enrolled bill and political question doctrines and Speech and Debate Clause).

1976As a court reviewing a challenge to a recall petition under the Los Angeles Home Rule Charter observed: “The courts are ever mindful of the desirability of having recall petitions presented to the people . . . without delay or excessive expenditure of time.” Reites v. Wilkerson, 99 Cal.App.2d 500, 502 , 222 P.2d 81, 83 (2d Dist. 1950) (citation omitted). .

1976As a court reviewing a challenge to a recall petition under the Los Angeles Home Rule Charter observed: “The courts are ever mindful of the desirability of having recall petitions presented to the people . . . without delay or excessive expenditure of time.” Reites v. Wilkerson, 99 Cal.App.2d 500, 502 , 222 P.2d 81, 83 (2d Dist. 1950) (citation omitted). .