Source: https://casetext.com/case/com-v-jackson-10
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 01:02:28
Document Index: 693619086

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3701', '§ 1', '§ 7', '§ 903', '§ 306']

Com. v. Jackson, 506 Pa. 469 | Casetext
506 Pa. 469 (Pa. 1984)
Com.v.Jackson
Com. v. Quarles
Appellant's last contention is that the evidence adduced at his trial was insufficient to prove him guilty…
However, the weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part,…
In Commonwealth v. Jackson, 506 Pa. 469, 485 A.2d 1102 (1985), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enunciated the following appellate standard of review for insufficiency of the evidence claims: "Where a defendant challenges his conviction on appeal the test of sufficiency of evidence is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offenses charges was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Submitted October 25, 1984.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, at CP-8101-780 and 783, Stanley L. Kubacki, J.
Eric B. Henson, Deputy District Atty., Thomas Quinn, Asst. District Atty., for appellant.
Stanley P. Stern, Philadelphia, for appellee.
The Commonwealth appeals the Superior Court's reversal of the judgments of sentence imposed upon the appellee, Craig Jackson. On July 3, 1981, the appellee was convicted by Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Stanley L. Kubacki, sitting without a jury, of robbery and conspiracy. The sole issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. We reverse.
Superior Court's opinion is reported at 316 Pa. Super. 553, 463 A.2d 1036 (1983).
Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, as amended by Act of June 24, 1976, P.L. 425, No. 102, § 1; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701.
Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, as amended by Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53, § 7(2); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.
The appellee testified on his own behalf and confirmed that an altercation took place between him and the complainant. However, he claimed that the complainant threw the first punch and he denied that anyone else was involved. He denied knowing what happened to the complainant's glasses. Two friends of the appellee essentially corroborated his testimony.
Immediately prior to the preliminary hearing, the appellee's sister approached the complainant, returned his glasses to him, and asked him to drop the charges against her brother. (N.T., trial, 44-45.)
Where a defendant challenges his conviction on appeal the test of sufficiency of evidence is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offenses charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See, Commonwealth v. Macolino, 503 Pa. 201, 469 A.2d 132 (1983); Commonwealth v. Tribble, 502 Pa. 619, 467 A.2d 1130 (1983); Commonwealth v. Keblitis, 500 Pa. 321, 456 A.2d 149 (1983); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 499 Pa. 389, 453 A.2d 927 (1982); Commonwealth v. Lovette, 498 Pa. 665, 450 A.2d 975 (1982).
Because it is difficult to prove an explicit or formal agreement by direct evidence, a conspiracy may be proven inferentially by showing the relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties. Overt acts of alleged co-conspirators are competent as proof of the conspiracy. Commonwealth v. Kennedy, supra; Commonwealth v. Dolfi, 483 Pa. 266, 396 A.2d 635 (1979).
An examination of the record convinces that the factfinder had more than sufficient evidence to show that the appellee and his accomplices assaulted the victim with the intent to steal his gold chain, his glasses, and whatever happened to be in his pockets. That they were able to get away with only his eye glasses does not negate or diminish the crime. Even though there was no evidence that appellee himself picked up the glasses, he is criminally responsible for the acts of his co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Commonwealth v. Roux, 465 Pa. 482, 350 A.2d 867 (1976); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 461 Pa. 309, 336 A.2d 300 (1975). See also, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 306.