evidence submitted hearing in Pennsylvania

2015Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 726 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (“It is the function of the [fact-finder] to evaluate evidence adduced at trial to reach a determination as to the facts, and where the verdict is based on substantial, if conflicting evidence, it is - 12 - J-S49023-15 conclusive on appeal.”); see also Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75, 82 (Pa. Super. 2004) citing Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 527 (Pa. 2003) (noting “the [fact-finder] [is] not obligated to accept” the evidence submitted by the defense).

2014Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75, 82 (Pa. Super. 2004) citing Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 527 (Pa. 2003).

2015Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 726 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (“It is the function of the [fact-finder] to evaluate evidence adduced at trial to reach a determination as to the facts, and where the verdict is based on substantial, if conflicting evidence, it is - 12 - J-S49023-15 conclusive on appeal.”); see also Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75, 82 (Pa. Super. 2004) citing Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 527 (Pa. 2003) (noting “the [fact-finder] [is] not obligated to accept” the evidence submitted by the defense).

2014Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75, 82 (Pa. Super. 2004) citing Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 527 (Pa. 2003).

2015Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 726 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (“It is the function of the [fact-finder] to evaluate evidence adduced at trial to reach a determination as to the facts, and where the verdict is based on substantial, if conflicting evidence, it is - 12 - J-S49023-15 conclusive on appeal.”); see also Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75, 82 (Pa. Super. 2004) citing Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 527 (Pa. 2003) (noting “the [fact-finder] [is] not obligated to accept” the evidence submitted by the defense).

2013Indeed, “[i]t is the function of the jury to evaluate evidence adduced at trial to reach a determination as to the facts ...” Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 726 (Pa.Super.2003) (internal citation omitted). “[T]he jury [is] not obligated to accept” the evidence submitted by the defense.

2023On March 20, 2023, the trial court filed a supplemental -3- J-S42017-22 Rule 1925(a) opinion stating that, upon concluding an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial court found Appellant’s testimony and the evidence submitted at the hearing to be credible and that the Rule 1925(b) statement was timely filed on June 20, 2022, or June 21, 2022, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule.2 See Trial Court Opinion, 3/20/23, at 2 (stating, the trial court “credits the testimony of [Appellant] that he deposited the filing with prison officials either on [June 20, 2022, or June 21, 2022.] This is co

2011See Wellsboro Area School District v. Tioga County Board for the Assessment & Revision of Taxes, 651 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (Upon an appeal of a decision by a county tax assessment board, the trial court had authority to conduct a trial de novo pursuant to Section 704(a) of the Assessment Law, 72 P.S. § 5453.704(a), to determine whether real property owned by a school district was exempt from taxation under Sections 202(a)(4) and (7), 72 P.S. § 202(a)(4), (7), based on a review of the evidence submitted at the hearing before the board.). .

1971In Appeal of Pennsylvania Company, 282 Pa. 69, 73 , 127 A. 441, 442 (1925), the court wrote: "At the hearing, the assessment, as made, was presented, and thus a prima facie case was established.

1971In Appeal of Pennsylvania Company, 282 Pa. 69, 73 , 127 A. 441, 442 (1925), the court wrote: "At the hearing, the assessment, as made, was presented, and thus a prima facie case was established.