Court Opinion

ID: 9962571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:13:37.468869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:11.955859
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                MIDDLE DISTRICT

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                   :   No. 356 MAL 2023
                                                 :
                      Respondent                 :
                                                 :   Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                 :   from the Published Opinion and
               v.                                :   Order of the Superior Court at No.
                                                 :   791 MDA 2022, at 297 A.3d 424
                                                 :   (Pa. Super. 2023) entered on June
 MICHAEL T. MARTIN, JR.,                         :   12, 2023, reversing and
                                                 :   remanding the Order of the
                      Petitioner                 :   Franklin/Fulton County Court of
                                                 :   Common Pleas at No. CP-28-CR-
                                                 :   0002065-2019 entered on May 13,
                                                     2022

                                         ORDER

PER CURIAM                                                      DECIDED: April 23, 2024

       AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2024, we GRANT the petition for allowance of

appeal, VACATE the Superior Court’s decision reversing the trial court’s grant of the

motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, and REMAND for the

Superior Court to review the challenge to the trial court’s order under the appropriate

appellate standard of review. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000)

(appellate court must give “the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons

advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is

against the weight of the evidence” and consider each of the reasons given by the trial

court to determine if trial court’s discretion was exercised on “a foundation of reason”);

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1053 (Pa. 2013) (reviewing court must “give the

gravest consideration to the findings and reasons” of the trial court and finding that

Superior Court did not apply the proper abuse of discretion standard because it

“failed to consider the discretion
exercised by the trial judge or the findings and reasons advanced by the judge in support

of his determination”); Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 265 A.3d 290 (Pa. 2021) (Superior

Court must specify how trial court abused its discretion).

                                   [356 MAL 2023] - 2