Opinion ID: 2333059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We review Appellant's argument under the standard articulated in Commonwealth v. Benham: [11] On motion for directed verdict, the trial court must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the Commonwealth. If the evidence is sufficient to induce a reasonable juror to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, a directed verdict should not be given. For the purpose of ruling on the motion, the trial court must assume that the evidence for the Commonwealth is true, but reserv[e] to the jury questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony. On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then is the defendant entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. [12] At trial, the Commonwealth essentially conceded that Appellant suffered from a shoulder injury, but sought to prove that Appellant was capable of earning a wage despite that injury. Although Appellant maintained otherwise, the evidence permitted the jury to believe that Appellant could reasonably provide support for his minor children and simply chose not to do so. While the Commonwealth did not offer its own medical expert to rebut Appellant's letters from various treatment providersclearly inadmissible, but admitted without objection from the Commonwealthregarding Appellant's injury, the evidence permitted the reasonable inference that Appellant could perform a number of compensable tasks. Appellant's argument essentially boils down to a request that this Court accept as true his allegation that, despite his desire to provide for his children, his body was not up to any of the employment prospects identified. The jury, however, was not required to accept Appellant's testimony as true, and, in fact, Appellant himself testified that there were times when he had the money to pay his child support, but paid other expenses instead. We find nothing clearly unreasonable about the verdict actually reached in this case and, accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's failure to direct a verdict of acquittal.