weight of the evidence claim in Pennsylvania

2026“The trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 , 879–80 (Pa. 2008).

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

2026Commonwealth v. Martin, 323 A.3d 807 , 823 (Pa.Super. 2024) (citing Widmer, 744 A.2d at 751-52 ). -6- J-A27009-25 Additionally, “[a]n appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Arias, 286 A.3d 341, 352 (Pa.Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2026It is well-established that a weight of the evidence claim is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and “[a] new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000).

2025A “trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340, 363 , 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (2009), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 909 , 130 S.Ct. 3282 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1191 (2010). “[I]f there is any support in the record for the trial court’s decision to deny the appellant’s motion for a new trial based on weight of the evidence, then we must affirm.” Commonwealth v. McFarland, 278 A.3d 369 , 385 (Pa.Super. 2022), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 291 A.3d 863 (2023) (quoting Corvin v. Tihansky, 184 A.3d 9

2025A “trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340, 363 , 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (2009), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 909 , 130 S.Ct. 3282 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1191 (2010). “[I]f there is any support in the record for the trial court’s decision to deny the appellant’s motion for a new trial based on weight of the evidence, then we must affirm.” Commonwealth v. McFarland, 278 A.3d 369 , 385 (Pa.Super. 2022), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 291 A.3d 863 (2023) (quoting Corvin v. Tihansky, 184 A.3d 9

2026“An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court.” Clay, 64 A.3d at 1055 .

2026“An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court.” Clay, 64 A.3d at 1055 .

2025See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating issues raised for the first time on appeal are waived); Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009) (holding a weight of the evidence claim not presented to the trial court but instead raised for the first time in a Rule 1925(b) statement is waived); see also Commonwealth v. Torsunov, 2025 Pa. Super. 207, at *16-17 (Pa. Super., filed September 17, 2025) (stating “[a]n appellant’s failure to avail himself of any of the prescribed methods for presenting a weight of the -6- J-S29028-25 evidence issue to the trial court constitutes waiver of that claim” (in

2021It is well settled that an appellant must raise a weight of the evidence challenge “with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial: (1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence motion.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A) (some formatting altered); see also Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009) (holding that although the appellant “included an issue challenging the verdict on weight of the evidence grounds in his [Rule] 1925(b) statement and the trial -8- J-S06027-21 court addressed [the appellant’s]

2026See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“A weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a post-sentence motion, by a written motion before - 13 - J-S41018-25 sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to properly preserve a weight of the evidence claim will result in waiver, even if the trial court addresses the issue in its Rule 1925(a) opinion).

2022See Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013) (“A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the ground that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.”) (citation omitted). - 10 - J-S01038-22 as to whether the aggravated indecent assault, in fact, occurred.9 Therefore, Hess is entitled to no relief on this claim.

2020“A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the ground that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted). “[C]redibility determinations are -7- J-S16030-20 made by the fact finder and . . . challenges thereto go to the weight . . . of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224, 227 (Pa.Super. 1997).

2025When a post-sentence motion for a new trial has been filed, the role of the trial court is to “determine that ‘notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or given them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.’” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000)). “[A] new trial should be awarded when 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 opport

2021See generally Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 438-39, 648 , A.2d 1177, 1189 (1994) (noting a new trial may only be granted on a weight-of-the-evidence claim where the “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” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2026For an appellant to prevail on a weight of the evidence claim, “the evidence must be so tenuous, vague[,] and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the [trial] court.” Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 833 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2003).

2025For an appellant to prevail on a weight of the evidence claim, “the evidence must be so tenuous, vague[,] and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the [trial] court.” Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 833 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2003).

2025Our standard of review for a weight of the evidence claim is as follows: “A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.” [In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76, 95 (Pa. 2014).] Thus, we may reverse the juvenile court’s adjudication of delinquency only if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. [In re J.M., 89 A.3d 688, 692 (Pa. Super. 2014).] Moreover, where the juvenil

2023In Int. of J.G., supra at 1187 (citation formatting provided). - 11 - J-S36017-22 “A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.” In re J.B., 630 Pa. 124 , 106 A.3d 76, 95 (2014) (citation omitted).

2025Thus, the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings. - 14 - J-S30035-25 Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1035-36 (Pa. 2007).

2023As often reiterated, “the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1036 (Pa. 2007).

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

2025Appellant’s first issue is a challenge to the weight of the evidence. “[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) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022The weight of the evidence supports the jury's verdict as to all offenses charged, including the additional “course of conduct,” factors that impact offense grading, See Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325, 331 (Pa. Super. 2012)(quoting Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 880 (Pa. 2008)(“[A] trial court's denial of a post- sentétice motion “based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.”).

2016Commonwealth v. Serrano, 61 A.3d 279, 289 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003)). “[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)). -6- J-S39014-16 Upon review of the record, Appellant’s brief, and the trial court opinion, we conclude the trial court’s opinion, authored by Judge Shawn D.

2008As to the weight-of-the-evidence claim, the panel referenced the limited appellate standard of review, see Rabold, 920 A.2d at 860 (citing Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003)), and rejected the claim summarily.

2022Thus, the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight-of-the-evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings. - 13 - J-A05018-22 Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602, 609 (Pa. 2011).

2022Ramtahal, 33 A.3d at 607-09 . -3- J-A06002-22 Motions in arrest of judgment are evaluated under a sufficiency of the evidence standard, not a weight of the evidence standard as Appellant argues [in his Rule 1925(b) statement].

2026Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e) (directing the appellant to set forth in the argument portion of his brief where in the record he preserved the issue before the trial court); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a weight of the evidence claim waived where the appellant failed to raise it in a pre-sentence motion, did not address the issue orally prior to sentencing, and did not raise it in a post-sentence motion).

2026See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding a weight of the evidence claim waived where the appellant failed to raise it in a pre-sentence motion, did not address the issue orally prior to sentencing, and did not raise it in a post-sentence motion); Lambert, 797 A.2d at 240 (holding that a claim that could have been raised on direct appeal, but was not, is waived under the PCRA).

2018“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." Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2013); see Pa.R.Crim.P. 607.

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.

2025In Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2011), our Supreme Court rejected Houser’s weight-of-the- evidence claim in a self-defense case for the following reasons: It is well settled that the jury is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is only warranted where the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice.

2024A trial court will grant “a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim . . . only . . . where the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice.” Id. (citation omitted).

2020Moreover, the judge who presided over Appellant’s nonjury trial is no longer sitting in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.3 In such instances, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has carved an exception to the general rule that “a weight of the evidence claim is primarily addressed to the discretion of the judge who actually presided at trial.” Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698, 702 (Pa. 2002).

2018Appellant’s Brief at 29-31. -9- J-S74033-17 “The general rule in this Commonwealth is that a weight of the evidence claim is primarily addressed to the discretion of the judge who actually presided at trial.” Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698, 702 (Pa. 2002).

2025See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-14 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining an argument that the Commonwealth’s evidence was not credible is properly characterized as a challenge to the weight of the evidence); see also Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 561 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that a weight-of-the-evidence claim “concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed” (citation omitted)).

2025A weight-of-the- evidence claim “concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 561 (Pa. Super. 2006).

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

2022Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732, 736-37 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 954 A.2d 575 (Pa. 2008). “[A] -3- J-S05026-22 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)).

2024We give great deference to the trial court’s decision regarding a weight of the evidence claim because it had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented. -7- J-S43013-23 Commonwealth v. Roane, 204 A.3d 998, 1001 (Pa.Super. 2019) (cleaned up).

2024We give great deference to the trial court’s decision regarding a weight of the evidence claim because it had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented. -7- J-S43013-23 Commonwealth v. Roane, 204 A.3d 998 , 1001 (Pa.Super. 2019) (cleaned up).

2026“Relief on a weight of the evidence claim is reserved for extraordinary circumstances, when the [fact-finder’s] verdict is - 21 - J-S39041-25 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. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 39 (Pa. 2011) (internal citation and quotations omitted).

2026“Relief on a weight of the evidence claim is reserved for extraordinary circumstances, when the [factfinder’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 -4- J-S06025-26 opportunity to prevail.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 39 (Pa. 2011) (internal citation and quotations omitted).

2021A 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. [See] Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; [see also] - 23 - J-S09008-21 Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235, 1239 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2018As to Appellant’s weight-of-the-evidence claim, it is well-settled that “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.” Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235, 1239 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607).

2020“Appellate review of a weight of the evidence claim is limited to a review of the judge’s exercise of discretion.” Id., cmt (citing Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-92 (Pa. 1994)).

2020The Section 303 Certification reads as follows: APPLICATION FOR EXTENDED INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT (Footnote Continued) _______________________ timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, [the appellant] successfully preserved the issue for appellate review”); see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212-213 (Pa. 1997) (holding: at a time when post-sentence motions were optional and a “void” existed in the rules as to how a litigant was to preserve a weight of the evidence challenge following a criminal trial, the Supreme Court held that the appellant did not waive his weight of the evidence claim

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

2025See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-14 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining an argument that the Commonwealth’s evidence was not credible is properly characterized as a challenge to the weight of the evidence); see also Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 561 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that a weight-of-the-evidence claim “concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions which evidence is to be believed” (citation omitted)).

2026However, because a weight of the evidence claim “ripens only at the post- verdict stage,” such claim is “properly forwarded for the first time in a timely- filed post-trial motion.” Id. - 14 - J-A30012-25 and found that the jury charge required the jury to award damages and that the jury failed to follow instructions? (3) Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion when it found the verdict was against the weight of the evidence? (4) Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion when it failed to find that [Busanic] waived his

2022The only trial entity capable of vindicating aclaim that the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence claim is the trial judge -- decidedly not the jury. 5 834 A.2d at 512 .