weight claim in Pennsylvania

2026In reviewing a weight claim, an appellate court does not “consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003).

2026“Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Id.

2026The defendant is not entitled - 12 - J-S27004-25 to relief on a weight claim because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because a different judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion, but only where “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.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013).

2026Our standard of review as to the denial of a weight claim by a trial court is to examine “the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000)) (emphasis omitted).

2026A weight claim must be presented to the trial court in the first instance, because “[a]ppellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 753 ; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) (requiring a challenge to the weight of the evidence to be presented to the trial judge, in the first instance).

2026“Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the [trial court’s] exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000) (emphasis added, citation omitted).

2025See Alberto’s Br. at 10.3 The trial court may sustain a weight challenge and grant a new trial only where the evidence is “so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 546 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2025The trial court may sustain a weight challenge and grant a new trial only where the evidence is “so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 546 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2025A weight claim requires the defendant to first convince the trial court that “the evidence is so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” - 18 - J-A22021-24 Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa.Super. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. - 10 - J-A13024-25 Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). “[A]n abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment.

2026Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. ____________________________________________ 3 Both Graham and Gladney testified he was the person shown on the video. -9- J-A30044-25 Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269, 1274-75 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2025Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. -7- J-S23005-25 Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269, 1274-75 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth v. Wright, 314 A.3d 515, 524 (Pa. Super. 2024) (same).

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).

2026A trial court’s denial of a motion based on a weight claim “is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008).

2020Thus, “appellate review of a weight claim consists of a review of the trial court's exercise of discretion, not a review of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id.

2020Thus, “appellate review of a weight claim consists of a review of the trial court's exercise of discretion, not a review of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the -7- J-S17022-20 weight of the evidence.” Id.

2022Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. - 20 - J-A14034-22 Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 40 A.3d 1250, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

2020Finally, in considering a claim that the trial court erred in refusing to find that a verdict was against the weight of the evidence, "'appellate review is Limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.'" Taylor, 63 A.3d at 330 (quoting Shaffer, 40 A.3d at 1253 ).

2023Thus, “the function of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court’s exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather than to consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of the evidence.” An appellate court may not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court “palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Further, in reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, a verdict will be overturned only if it is “so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 312 (Pa

2022Thus, “the function of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court’s exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather than to consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of the evidence.” An appellate court may not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court “palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Further, in reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, a verdict will be overturned only if it is “so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 312 (Pa

2026See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009) (reiterating that because “appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion,” an appellant’s failure to preserve a weight claim deprives the trial court of the opportunity to exercise its discretion, leaving this Court with “nothing to review on appeal.”) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 888 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that under Anders, “[a]n issue that is waived is frivolous.”). - 12 - J-S45025-25 Because Appellant advanced this argument as a challenge to the weight of the e

2025See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009) (stating that an appellant waives review of a weight claim if it is raised for the first time on appeal).

2018See Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 281-282 (“An argument that the finder of fact should have credited one witness’ testimony over that of another witness goes to the weight of the evidence, not the sufficiency of the evidence.”). -8- J-S44028-18 on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” “Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 282 (citations omitted). “[I]t is for the fact-finder to make

2018A30034/17 Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281-282 (Pa.Super. 2008) (an argument that the fact-finder should have credited one witness’s testimony over that of another witness goes to the weight of the evidence, not the sufficiency of the evidence); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 , 713- 714 (Pa.Super. 2003) (a review of the sufficiency of the evidence does not include a credibility assessment; such a claim goes to the weight of the evidence); Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224, 227 (Pa.Super. 1997) (the fact-finder makes credibility determinations, and challenges to those determin

2019Rather, review is limited "to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight of the claim.” Id. [citing Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 528 (Pa. 2003)].

2016Rather, “[our] review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 528 (Pa. 2003), cert. denied, Tharp v. Pennsylvania, 541 U.S. 1045 (2004).

2026Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. [Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189 (Pa. 1994)].

2023Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. [Commonwealth v.] Brown, [ 648 A.2d 1177 ,] 1189 [Pa. 1994].

2026“An allegation that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Galvin, -8- J-S01042-26 985 A.2d 783, 793 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1051 (2010). [W]here the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

2026“An allegation that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” -8- J-S09043-26 Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783, 793 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1051 (2010). “[A] true weight of the evidence challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 643 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 183 A.3d 970 (Pa. 2018). [W]here the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate cour

2018We note our standard of review: [T]he weight of the evidence is “exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” An appellate court “cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact . . . thus, we may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Moreover, “where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the

2015In addition, "where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, ... rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim." Commonwealth v. Kim, 2005 PA Super. 383, 888 A.2d 847, 851 (2005) (quoting Champney, 832 A.2d at 408 ).

2026“Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. -6- J-S41002-25 Commonwealth v. Arias, 286 A.3d 341, 352 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

2025In evaluating a weight claim, “the trial court is under no obligation to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner,” as a weight of the evidence claim “concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation and emphasis omitted).

2025See Order 8/23/23, at 3. -3- J-S10045-25 To prevail on a weight challenge, a defendant must prove the evidence is “so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” See Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2022See -5- J-S04024-22 Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to preserve a weight claim at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion results in waiver); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived).3 To the extent Appellant’s issue goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, we, like the trial court, find that the issue lacks merit.

2018Hence, "a trial court's denial of a weight claim is the least assailable of its rulings." Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting in part Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008)). -9 J -S74004-17 A weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a post - sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.

2022Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. - 17 - J-S35039-22 Commonwealth v. Mucci, 143 A.3d 399 , 410–11 (Pa.Super. 2016), (quoting Commonwealth v. Clay, 619 Pa. 423 , 64 A.3d 1049 , 1054–55 (2013)).

2022Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. - 17 - J-S35039-22 Commonwealth v. Mucci, 143 A.3d 399 , 410–11 (Pa.Super. 2016), (quoting Commonwealth v. Clay, 619 Pa. 423 , 64 A.3d 1049 , 1054–55 (2013)).

2018Thus, appellate review of a weight claim consists of a review of the trial court's exercise of discretion, not a review of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 738 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2017Thus, appellate review of a weight claim consists of a review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion, not a review of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 738 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2022Additionally, a court must not reverse a verdict based on a weight claim unless that verdict was so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. ____________________________________________ 3 Although she couched her claim as one implicating the sufficiency of the evidence, Appellant does not identify any element of the crime upon which the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient. -4- J-S23015-22 Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732, 736-37 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 954 A.2d 575 (Pa. 2008). “[A] trial court’s denial of a post-sentence motion

2021Additionally, a court must not reverse a verdict based on a weight claim unless that verdict was so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. - 17 - J-A27013-20 Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732, 736-37 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 954 A.2d 575 (Pa. 2008). “[A] trial court’s denial of a post-sentence motion ‘based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.’” Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325, 331 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008)).

2022Additionally, a court must not reverse a verdict based on a weight claim unless that verdict was so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. ____________________________________________ 3 Although she couched her claim as one implicating the sufficiency of the evidence, Appellant does not identify any element of the crime upon which the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient. -4- J-S23015-22 Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732, 736-37 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 954 A.2d 575 (Pa. 2008). “[A] trial court’s denial of a post-sentence motion

2022Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim); Commonwealth y, Sanders, 42 A.3d 325, 331 (Pa. Super. 2012)(“A jury decision to credit certain evidence and reject other testimony is appropriate; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that its sense of justice was not shocked by the verdict.”).

2023A challenge to the weight of the evidence "must be presented to the trial court while it exercises jurisdiction over the matter because appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Burkett, 830 A.2d 1034, 1037 (Pa. Super. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021See also Commonwealth v. Burkett, 830 A.2d 1034, 1037 (Pa. Super. 2003) (providing that a weight of the evidence claim “must be presented to the trial court while it exercises jurisdiction over a matter since [a]ppellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2023See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 491 (Pa.Super. 2014). - 17 - J-S19020-23 Here, Geddes-Kelly did not raise a weight claim in his post-sentence motion or at sentencing.

2021It is well- settled that a defendant must preserve a weight claim “either in a post- sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. - 16 - J-S19009-21 2014) (citation omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A).

2025Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Commonwealth v. Cruz, 919 A.2d 279, 282 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted). “[T]he essence of appellate review [of] a weight claim appears to lie in ensuring that the trial court’s decision has record support.

2025Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.” Commonwealth v. Cruz, 919 A.2d 279, 282 (Pa. Super. 2007).