defendant who raises claim in Pennsylvania

2025“Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense . . . a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Carbone, 574 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990)).

2019Nevertheless, “a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Carbone, 574 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990).

2025Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense ... a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Houser, 610 Pa. 264, 275 , 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (2011).

2025Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense ... a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Houser, 610 Pa. 264, 275 , 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (2011).

2024Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact- finder is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 788 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted and formatting altered).

2024Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact-finder is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Id. (citations omitted and formatting altered). -7- J-S03019-24 Here, the trial court explained: At trial [] Appellant raised a claim of self-defense when he testified that he intentionally shot Carlos Taffanelly, Liliana Giraldo, Jamielynn Giraldo.

2022However, “[a]lthough the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a [finder of fact] is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Bullock, supra at 824 .

2022However, “[a]lthough the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a [finder of fact] is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Bullock, supra at 824 .

2024Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense . . . [the factfinder] is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Chine, 40 A.3d 1239, 1243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

2024Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense . . . a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Chine, 40 A.3d 1239 , 1243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 , 1135 (Pa. 2011)).

2017See Commonwealth v. Bracey, 662 A.2d 1062, 1066 (Pa. 1995) (holding that “the jury was free to disbelieve the evidence proffered by Appellant in support of claim of self-defense”); Commonwealth v. Carbone, 574 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990) (providing that “although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim”). 14 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 (b).

2016See Commonwealth v. Bracey, 541 Pa. 322 , 662 A.2d 1062, 1066 (1995) (holding that “the jury was free to disbelieve the evidence proffered by [the] appellant in support of [his] claim of reduced intent and/or self-defense”); Commonwealth v. Carbone, 524 Pa. 551 , 574 A.2d 584, 589 (1990) (providing that “[a]lthough the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a -6- J-S36042-16 jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim”).

2015Nonetheless, “the Commonwealth cannot sustain its burden of proof solely on the fact finder’s disbelief of the defendant’s testimony.” Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001).

2015Nonetheless, “the Commonwealth cannot sustain its burden of proof solely on the fact finder’s disbelief of the defendant’s testimony.” Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001).

2024Id. at 788 (emphasis added; citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 271 A.3d 452, 458 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“The finder of fact is not required to believe the defendant’s testimony that he thought that he was in imminent danger and acted in self-defense [or defense of others].” (citation omitted)).

2023Id. at 788 (emphasis added; citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Jones, 271 A.3d at 458 (“The finder of fact is not required to believe the defendant’s testimony that he thought that he was in imminent danger and acted in self-defense.”).

1993See *305 Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 556 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1978) (fact finder may believe any, all, or none of any witness's testimony), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989 , 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 . * * * * * * Moreover, where there is evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer malice, the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

1993See *305 Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 556 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1978) (fact finder may believe any, all, or none of any witness's testimony), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989 , 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 . * * * * * * Moreover, where there is evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer malice, the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

1993See *305 Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 556 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1978) (fact finder may believe any, all, or none of any witness's testimony), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989 , 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 . * * * * * * Moreover, where there is evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer malice, the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

1993See Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 556 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1978) (fact finder may believe any, all, or none of any witness’s testimony), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989 , 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 .

1993See *305 Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 556 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1978) (fact finder may believe any, all, or none of any witness's testimony), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989 , 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 . * * * * * * Moreover, where there is evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer malice, the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

1993See Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. 551, 556 , 388 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1978) (fact finder may believe any, all, or none of any witness’s testimony), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 989 , 99 S.Ct. 588 , 58 L.Ed.2d 663 .

2024See Commonwealth v. Jones, 332 A.2d 464, 466 (Pa. Super. 1974) (holding that “wielding a knife certainly amounts to the use of deadly force” in nonfatal altercation). - 10 - J-S41008-24 finder] is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.

2024However, “[t]he Commonwealth cannot sustain its burden of proof solely on the fact[-]finder's disbelief of the defendant's testimony.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1221 (Pa. 2009) (citations, internal quotation marks, and modifications omitted).

2024However, “[t]he Commonwealth cannot sustain its burden of proof solely on the fact[-]finder's disbelief of the defendant's testimony.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 , 1221 (Pa. 2009) (citations, internal quotation marks, and modifications omitted).

2024Further, in a case that “involves a mere battery,” “force may be met with force so long as it is only force enough to repel the attack.” Commonwealth v. Pollino, 467 A.2d 1298, 1301 (Pa. 1983).

2024Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact-finder is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Id. (citations omitted and formatting altered); see also Commonwealth v. Micklos, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2017).

2015Id. at 1143-44 "Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense ... a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim." Commonwealth v. Houser, 11 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (Pa. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Carbone, 574 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa.1990) "It remains the province of the jury to determine whether the accused's belief was reasonable, whether he was free of provocation, and whether he had no duty to retreat." Commonwealth v. McClendon, 874 A.2d 1223, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Internal citation omitted) The testimony of the Commonwealth's

2015See Commonwealth v. Bracey, 662 A.2d 1062, 1066 (Pa. 1995) (holding that “the jury was free to disbelieve the evidence proffered by appellant in support of claim of reduced intent and/or self-defense”); Commonwealth v. Carbone, 574 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990) (providing that “[a]lthough the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim”); see also Melvin, 103 A.3d at 40 .

2008See Holley, supra. “Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Carbone, 524 Pa. 551, 562 , 574 A.2d 584, 589 (1990) (citation omitted).