sufficiency of the evidence claim in Pennsylvania

2026During review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn.” Id.

2025A sufficiency of the evidence claim questions whether the evidence established “each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 305-06 (Pa. Super. 2017).

2017We apply the following standard when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: “[W]hether 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.” Commonwealth v. Lehman, 820 A.2d 766 , 772 -5- J-A29019-16 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001)).

2017We apply the following standard when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: “[W]hether 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.” Commonwealth v. Lehman, 820 A.2d 766, 772 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001)).

2021See Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that, where the sufficiency of the evidence claim “simply declare[s], in boilerplate fashion, that the evidence [is] insufficient to support [the] conviction, the sufficiency claim is waived on appeal).

2017The trial court relied upon this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 261 (Pa.Super. 2015) wherein a panel of this Court found waiver of a sufficiency of the evidence claim to be appropriate despite the lack of objection by the Commonwealth and despite the presence of a trial court opinion where the appellant simply declared in boilerplate *1072 fashion the evidence had been insufficient to support his conviction in his Rule 1925(b) statement.

2021“The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 484-85 (quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 559 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc)). -6- J-S10017-21 Subsection 3802(d)(2) prohibits driving, operating, or being in “actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle” by an individual who is “under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs [one’s] ability” to do so safely. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2).

2020“The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 559 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc)).

2020Id. at 16. ____________________________________________ 4 In addition, the court acquitted Appellant of Public Drunkenness. -3- J-S49025-20 “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn [from it], when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all elements of the offense.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 72 A.3d 719, 720 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2019“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all elements of the offense.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 72 A.3d 719, 721 (Pa. Super. 2013).

1999Commonwealth v. Burgos, 530 Pa. 473 , 610 A.2d 11 (1992).

1999Commonwealth v. Burgos, 530 Pa. 473 , 610 A.2d 11 (1992).

2023The court reasoned that “[t]he [c]oncise [s]tatement fails to identify which element of which convictions were based on insufficient evidence, and therefore, the sufficiency of the evidence claim has been waived for appeal.” Id.

2019“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict -8- J-S01011-19 winner, are sufficient to support all elements of the offense [beyond a reasonable doubt].” Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

2025Commonwealth v. Williams, 153 A.3d 372, 375 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2023See Commonwealth v. Williams, 153 A.3d 372, 375 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2018Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 549 Pa. 352 , 701 A.2d 492, 499 (Pa. 1Q97).

2018Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 549 Pa. 352 , 701 A.2d 492, 499 (Pa. 1Q97).

2021Commonwealth v. Goins, 867 A.2d 526, 527 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2021J-A03045-21 Commonwealth v. Goins, 867 A.2d 526, 527 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2021Our standard for review of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is as follows: When presented with a claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, an appellate court, viewing all of the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, must determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable the fact-finder to find that all elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt. - 13 - J-S07009-21 Commonwealth v. Woody, 939 A.2d 359, 361 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

2021“Furthermore, ‘[t]he Commonwealth may sustain its burden by proving the crime’s elements with evidence which is entirely circumstantial and the trier of fact, who determines credibility of witnesses and the weight to give the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.’” Id. at 361–362 (quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 701 A.2d 252, 254 (Pa. Super. 1997)).

2006When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: “[A]n appellate court must view all the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner in order to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable the fact-finder to find that all the elements of the offenses were established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269, 280 , 701 A.2d 190, 195 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1082 , 118 S.Ct. 1534 , 140 L.Ed.2d 684 (1998).

2006When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: “[A]n appellate court must view all the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner in order to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable the fact-finder to find that all the elements of the offenses were established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269, 280 , 701 A.2d 190, 195 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1082 , 118 S.Ct. 1534 , 140 L.Ed.2d 684 (1998).

2017To preserve a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, the appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement “must ‘specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient.’” Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa.Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2008)).

2015Williams, 959 A.2d at 1257-1258 ; see also Commonwealth v. Flores, 921 A.2d 517 , 522- 523 (Pa. Super. 2007)( a 1925(b) statement stating that "[t]he evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the above- captioned offenses" and that "the testimony of Sondra Coble, Julienne Briggs, and Atlas Simpson was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the above-captioned offenses" did not properly preserve a sufficiency of the evidence claim for appellate review.); Reeves, 907 A.2d at 3 (a Rule 1925(b) statemen

2026Commonwealth v. W.H.M., Jr., 932 A.2d 155, 160 (Pa. Super. 2007); see also Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-714 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating, a sufficiency of the evidence claim “does not include an assessment of the credibility of the testimony offered by the Commonwealth[; s]uch a claim is more properly characterized as a weight of the evidence challenge”); Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224, 227 (Pa. Super. 1997) (stating, “credibility determinations are made by the fact[-]finder and [] challenges [to those determinations] go to the weight, and not the sufficiency, of the evidence

2022See also Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa.Super. 2003) (explaining sufficiency of evidence review does not include assessment of credibility, which is more properly characterized as challenge to weight of evidence). - 18 - J-A01015-22 Instantly, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court noted: “As opposed to a sufficiency of the evidence claim, what [Appellant] is really raising is a weight of the evidence claim, as the only way he could win a sufficiency claim is if the [c]ourt credited the testimony of himself and Mr. Noreiga over the testimony of Corporal Funk, Patrolman Stuller, and [

2025Commonwealth v. Cruz, 71 A.3d 998, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and brackets omitted).

2018Our standard of review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well settled: Our standard of review is whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to enable the fact[-]finder to conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. -2- J-S75031-17 Commonwealth v. Cruz, 71 A.3d 998, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and brackets omitted).

2019In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine “whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the [Commonwealth], there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 64 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2015In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine “whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the [Commonwealth], there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 64 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

2026“A successful sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim requires discharge.” Mikitiuk, 213 A.3d at 300 .

2025“A successful sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim requires discharge.” Mikitiuk, 213 A.3d at 300 .

2017We apply the following standard when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: “[W]hether 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.” Commonwealth v. Lehman, 820 A.2d 766 , 772 -5- J-A29019-16 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001)).

2017We apply the following standard when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim: “[W]hether 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.” Commonwealth v. Lehman, 820 A.2d 766, 772 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001)).

2026“Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.” Id. (citation omitted).

2026“Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.” Id. (citation omitted).

2022“Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find -8- J-A07023-22 every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.” Id. (quoting Stokes, 38 A.3d at 853 ).

2022“Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find -8- J-A07023-22 every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.” Id. (quoting Stokes, 38 A.3d at 853 ).