Nevertheless, Systems' ledger was balanced by deposit of the unreported check, which replaced the missing cash. The deposit ticket that attended this transaction was prepared by defendant and was consistent with the manipulated receipts. The Commonwealth introduced evidence of no less than six substantially similar transactions, all linked to defendant. It is well established that this Court will not consider an argument which was not presented to the trial court. Here, defense counsel failed to specifically object during trial that Ms. Cassell testified to the ultimate issue.
Defendant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
When the Commonwealth relies upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. It is not sufficient that the evidence create a suspicion of guilt, however strong, or even a probability of guilt, but must exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt. However, the Commonwealth need only exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence that flow from the evidence, not those that spring from the imagination of defendant or counsel. Here, the evidence established that defendant was responsible for receiving cash and checks belonging to Systems, verifying and documenting the amounts, and depositing the funds to Systems' bank account. Defendant prepared the relevant deposit slips and adding machine tapes, including checks omitted from the payment register which compensated for deficiencies in cash receipts.