Com. v. Bernard, T. ( 2021 )

J-A07038-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TEDDY J. BERNARD :
:
Appellant : No. 461 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 2, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-36-CR-0000769-2019
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 23, 2021
Appellant Teddy J. Bernard appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County on January 2,
2020. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court set forth the facts and procedural history herein as
follows:
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2018, Lancaster County Children and Youth
Agency forwarded information to the Lancaster City Bureau of
Police (“LCBP”) relating to suspected child abuse involving M.J.
(“victim”). See Affidavit of Probable Cause. On November 26,
2018, the victim was interviewed by police and disclosed that
Appellant had sexual contact with her on numerous occasions
when she was 8 or 9 years of age, including penetrating her vagina
with his penis and forcing her to perform oral sex on his penis. Id.
Appellant was the ex-paramour of the victim's mother. Id. On
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A07038-21
January 17, 2019, police charged Appellant with rape of a child
and related sexual offenses. See Police Criminal Complaint.
On October 28, 2019, Appellant appeared before the court
for a jury trial on one count each of rape of a child, statutory
sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child,
sexual assault, indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of
age, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors, and
indecent exposure.1 (Notes of Testimony, Volume 1 at 88-91)
(“N.T.1”). On October 31, 2019, the jury returned a guilty verdict
on all counts and the court ordered a pre-sentence investigation.
(Notes of Testimony, Volume 4 at 2-4, 8-9).
On January 2, 2020, the court imposed an aggregate
sentence of ten years and nine months to thirty-four years[’]
incarceration. (Notes of Testimony, Sentencing at 25-27, 30)
(“N.T.S.”). The sentences imposed on each count were within the
standard range of the sentencing guidelines. Id.; see also
Sentencing Guidelines Worksheet. Moreover, the court imposed
the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years[’] incarceration for
rape of a child as requested by the Commonwealth. (N.T.S. at 4,
22).
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on January 9, 2020,
alleging in part that the convictions were against the weight of the
evidence. See Motion of the Defendant for a New Trial and Arrest
of Judgment. The motion was denied on February 6, 2020. See
Order, 2/6/20.
On March 6, 2020, Appellant timely filed an appeal to the
Superior Court. See Notice of Appeal. On April 24, 2020, Appellant
filed an Amended Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal
(“Statement”), alleging that the trial court abused its discretion:
(1) when it ruled that if Appellant presented character witnesses
as to the traits of law-abidingness or peacefulness the
Commonwealth would be permitted to present testimony of adult
women who alleged Appellant had sexually harassed them at their
places of employment; and (2) in finding that the guilty verdict
for the crimes of rape of a child, statutory sexual assault,
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse of a child, sexual assault,
indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of a
minor and indecent exposure was not against the weight of the
evidence. See Statement.
__
118 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.1(a)(1); 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(b); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3124.1; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
-2-
J-A07038-21
3126(a)(7); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318(a)(1); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
6301(a)(1)(ii); and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3127(a); respectively.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/22/20, at 1-3.
In his brief, Appellant presents the following questions for this Court’s
review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that
if Appellant presented character witnesses as to the traits of law-
abidingness or peacefulness, then Appellee would be permitted to
present testimony of adult women who alleged Appellant sexually
harassed them?
2. Whether the court abused its discretion in finding that the guilty
verdicts for the crimes of rape of a child, statutory sexual assault,
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse of a child, sexual assault,
indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of a
minor, and indecent exposure were not against the weight of the
evidence?
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
It is well-settled that:
Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within the
sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not
reverse the court's decision on such a question absent a clear
abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bracey, 831 A.2d 678,
681 (Pa. Super. 2003) (internal quotation marks and
modifications omitted). “[A] discretionary ruling cannot be
overturned simply because a reviewing court disagrees with the
trial court's conclusions.” See Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 836
A.2d 966, 968 (Pa. Super. 2003) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 862 A.2d 647, 650 (Pa.Super. 2004).
The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence permit a criminal defendant to
introduce evidence of his or her character or a pertinent character trait, so
long as that evidence is not used to “prove that on a particular occasion the
-3-
J-A07038-21
person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” Pa.R.E. 404(a)(1).
Such evidence may be proven by testimony about the person's reputation.
Pa.R.E. 405(a). As this Court further explained:
In a criminal case, the defendant may offer character witnesses
to testify as to that defendant's reputation in the community
regarding a relevant character trait. See Pa.R.E. 404(a)(1);
405(a). Of course, the Commonwealth may attempt to impeach
those witnesses. Commonwealth v. Hoover, 16 A.3d 1148,
1149 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Morgan, [ ]
739 A.2d 1033, 1035 ([Pa.] 1999)). “For example, when cross-
examining character witnesses offered by the accused, the
Commonwealth may test the witnesses' knowledge about specific
instances of conduct of the accused where those instances are
probative of the traits in question.” Hoover, 16 A.3d at 1149-
1150 (citing Pa.R.E. 405(a)). However, the Commonwealth's right
to cross-examine character witnesses is not unlimited: the
Commonwealth may not cross-examine a character witness about
a defendant's uncharged criminal allegations, Morgan, 739 A.2d
at 1035-1036, or a defendant's arrests that did not lead to
convictions. Commonwealth v. Scott, [ ] 436 A.2d 607, 611-
612 ([Pa.] 1981).
Commonwealth v. Kuder, 62 A.3d 1038, 1057-1058 (Pa.Super. 2013),
appeal denied, 114 A.3d 416 (Pa. 2015); see also Pa.R.E. 405(a)(2) (“In a
criminal case, on cross-examination of a character witness, inquiry into
allegations of other criminal conduct by the defendant, not resulting in
conviction, is not permissible.”).
In presenting his first issue, Appellant has mischaracterized the trial
court’s ruling on his “Motion to Preclude the Commonwealth from Introducing
Evidence of Unrelated Allegations of Sexual Harassment of Adult Women” filed
on October 16, 2019. The motion was filed in response to discovery provided
by the Commonwealth that revealed several of Appellant’s female co-workers
-4-
J-A07038-21
from two places of employment had made allegations of sexual harassment
or improper sexual touching against Appellant. See Motion at ¶ 3. Appellant
maintained their allegations were irrelevant and inadmissible at trial under
Pa.R.E. 404.
Prior to trial, a hearing was held on Appellant’s motion. Following oral
argument, the trial court ruled as follows:
THE COURT: What I indicated in chambers is that the
Commonwealth would not be permitted to cross-examine any of
your character witnesses with regard to any of the specific
instances or conduct that occurred, none of which apparently has
resulted in a conviction. And they would also not be able to call
witnesses to testify to the specific unrelated allegations of sexual
harassment; however, they would be able to call in rebuttal
witnesses to rebut [Appellant’s] character as to peacefulness
and/or being a law-abiding person essentially by asking those
witnesses whether they know of others in the community who
know [Appellant] and are they aware of [Appellant’s] reputation
in the community for being a peaceful person and, if so, what is
it.
So that was the [c]ourt’s ruling.
Mr. Stretton: It is my understanding if I do not present
character witnesses then Ms. Mansfield will not present adverse
character witnesses under those circumstances?
THE COURT: Right, I would not allow her to do so.
N.T. 10/28/19, at 10-11.
Defense counsel asked for an opportunity to clarify with Appellant
whether “he agrees for me not to call the character witnesses based on Your
Honor’s ruling[,]” and the trial court granted counsel the opportunity to do so.
Id. at 12. A colloquy ensued at which time defense counsel and the trial court
both questioned Appellant regarding counsel’s recommendation that in light
-5-
J-A07038-21
of the foregoing, character witnesses would not be called to testify on
Appellant’s behalf. Id. at 13-16.
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary, the trial court’s above
statements evince the court specifically stated it would not permit the
Commonwealth to call witnesses to testify as to specific, unrelated allegations
or to cross-examine Appellant’s character witnesses regarding any specific
conduct which had not resulted in a conviction. In fact, at no time did the trial
court rule that the Commonwealth’s proposed witnesses would be permitted
to testify about their allegations of sexual harassment against Appellant.
Simply put, the trial court held that if Appellant offered character
testimony pertaining to his general reputation as a peaceful and law abiding
citizen in community, the Commonwealth could rebut said testimony with
witnesses who could be asked “whether they know of others in the community
who know [Appellant] and are they aware of [Appellant’s] reputation in the
community for being a peaceful person and, if so, what is it.” In so ruling, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Pa.R.E. 405; Kuder, supra.
Therefore, despite the fact that during the colloquy, defense counsel stated
“the issue is preserved for appellate review, if we’re unsuccessful, I have a
right to challenge the Judge’s ruling up to the Superior Court if we have come
to that point[,]” Id. at 15, Appellant’s appellate argument in support of his
erroneous characterization of the trial court’s holding does not entitle him to
relief.
-6-
J-A07038-21
Appellant next challenges the weight of the evidence to support his
convictions. Initially, Appellant properly preserved his weight of the evidence
claim in a timely, post-sentence motion for a new trial, which the trial court
denied. See Commonwealth v. Stiles, 143 A.3d 968, 980 (Pa.Super. 2016)
(noting that a defendant “must present his challenge to the weight of the
evidence to the trial court for a review in the first instance”).
Appellant argues that M.J.’s failure to timely report the conduct, coupled
with the “extreme number of contradictions” in the testimony the
Commonwealth’s witnesses presented at trial and Appellant’s lack of a criminal
record, show that the “convictions are such that they should shock the
conscience of this Court, and shock fundamental justice.” Appellant’s Brief at
11, 28. Appellant states there is no physical evidence or reports to therapists
or psychiatrists with whom M.J. treated in middle school and high school to
corroborate her allegations. Appellant further stresses these allegations were
made at a time when M.J. was grappling with mental health and gender
identity issues. Id. at 26-28.
It is axiomatic that:
“A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion
of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Clay, ... 64 A.3d 1049,
1054-55 ( [Pa.] 2013). “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.” Id. at
1055. When a trial court considers a motion for a new trial based
upon a weight of the evidence claim, the trial court may award
relief only “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
-7-
J-A07038-21
imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to
prevail.” Id. The inquiry is not the same for an appellate court.
Rather, when an appellate court reviews a weight claim, the court
is reviewing the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not the
underlying question of whether the verdict was against the weight
of the evidence. Id. at 1054. The appellate court reviews a weight
claim using an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 1057.
At trial, the jury [is] the ultimate fact-finder and the sole
arbiter of the credibility of each of the witnesses. “Issues of
witness credibility include questions of inconsistent testimony and
improper motive.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, ... 36 A.3d 24,
27 ( [Pa.] 2011) (citation omitted). A jury is entitled to resolve
any inconsistencies in the Commonwealth's evidence in the
manner that it sees fit. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, ... 983
A.2d 1211, 1220 ( [Pa.] 2009) (stating that “the trier of fact, in
passing upon the credibility of witnesses, is free to believe all,
part, or none of the evidence”) (citation omitted).
Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1080 (Pa. 2017).
In response to Appellant's weight claim, the trial court opined as follows:
Appellant next alleges the court abused its discretion in
finding that the guilty verdict on each count was not against the
weight of the evidence, because the evidence was so contradictory
as to render any verdict based on this evidence unreliable. See
Statement.
An allegation that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, which
will award a new trial only when the jury's verdict is so contrary
to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Commonwealth
v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013). “[T]he evidence must
be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the
conscience of the court.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536,
546 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820
A.2d 795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
“The trial judge may not grant relief based merely on some
conflict in testimony or because the judge would reach a different
conclusion on the same facts.” Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946
A.2d 645, 653 (Pa. 2008)). The jury is free to believe “all, part, or
none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the
witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 985 A.2d 886, 897 (Pa.
2009). Questions about inconsistent testimony go to the
credibility of the witnesses, and it is solely for the jury to resolve
-8-
J-A07038-21
any conflicts or inconsistencies. Commonwealth v. Upshur, 764
A.2d 69, 74 (Pa. Super. 2000).
In Upshur, the appellant claimed the jury's verdict finding
him guilty of murder of the first degree was against the weight of
the evidence because the only eyewitness to the crime had given
conflicting accounts of the incident in statements to the police and
during trial, which made his testimony “wholly unworthy of belief.”
764 A.2d at 72. The Superior Court disagreed, stating it was solely
for the jury to determine credibility of the witnesses and resolve
conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. Id. at 74. The verdict
was not against the weight of the evidence because the jury
determined the testimony of the Commonwealth witness was
credible. Id.A trial court's exercise of discretion in determining whether
a verdict is against the weight of the evidence is one of the “least
assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial.”
Commonwealth v. Dupre, 866 A.2d 1089, 1102 (Pa. Super. 2005).
Appellate review is limited to whether the trial judge's discretion
was properly exercised, and relief will only be granted where the
facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of
discretion. Smith, 985 A.2d at 897. The function of an appellate
court 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. Commonwealth
v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (Pa. 2009).
In the present case, the victim testified at trial and
established a history of sexual abuse committed by Appellant
against her when the victim was between 8 and 10 years old.
(N.T.1 at 106-12, 120, 133-41, 146-47, 158-62). At the time,
Appellant was the boyfriend of the victim's mother. Id. at 106.
Although Appellant did not live with the victim and her mother, he
was at the victim's house almost every day and would stay the
night. Id. at 107, 148-49.
When she was 8 years old, Appellant told the victim to come
upstairs into her mother's bedroom while her mother was at the
grocery store. (N.T.1 at 107-08). There, Appellant told the victim
to take off her clothes and he had sexual intercourse with her,
putting his penis inside her vagina. Id. at 108. The victim could
not pinpoint the dates or number of times this happened, but
stated Appellant had sexual intercourse with her once a week and
it was more than 10 times. Id. at 111, 154-55, 158-59. The victim
usually laid down and Appellant got on top of her. Id. at 110.
However, Appellant sometimes made the victim get on top of him
during sexual intercourse when she got older. Id. at 111. The
-9-
J-A07038-21
victim recalled seeing Appellant with a condom wrapper and she
remembered it hurt when he put his penis inside her vagina. Id.
at 140-41.
The victim further stated that when Appellant called her into
the room he would also touch her face and breast area above and
under her clothes. (N.T.1 at 109-10). On one occasion, Appellant
had the victim perform oral sex on him. Id. at 111-12. Appellant
also kissed the victim on the lips and on her vagina. Id. at 137-
38. Appellant told the victim to keep these things between the two
of them. Id. at 141. The victim stated her mother was never home
when these incidents occurred and she never told her mother
when it was happening because she did not really understand
what was happening. Id. at 118-20.
The victim testified that she later realized Appellant's
actions were wrong while watching a TV show that mentioned the
word rape. (N.T.1 at 119-20, 162). She did not tell her mother
because she thought she would get in trouble. Id. at 120. However
the victim did tell a group of her friends, including Sarah in the
seventh grade and Claire in the ninth grade. Id. at 121-22, 156-
58. The victim told the school counselor in the eleventh grade that
Appellant had raped her. Id. at 123-24. After being admitted to
Roxbury Hospital because she became very depressed and
suicidal, the victim disclosed to Nurse Brian. Id. at 125-26. The
victim also told Detective Ryan Hockley by writing in a note that
Appellant had raped her. Id. at 132-34.
Claire Mcllvaine (“Mcllvaine”) confirmed she was friends with
the victim and they were close. (Notes of Testimony, Volume 2 at
112-13) ("N.T.2"). In September 2016, the victim told Mcllvaine
she was assaulted by her mother's boyfriend for a few years from
the time she was 9 years old, and did not understand what had
happened until sex ed in school. Id. at 114. McIlvaine remembered
the victim telling her about this on more than one occasion. Id. at
Shana McGill (“McGill”), the victim's mother, stated that she
and Appellant dated from 2005 to 2010 or 2011. (N.T.1 at 172-
77). According to McGill, Appellant sometimes stayed overnight
while they were dating, he lived with McGill and the victim for
around one year, and there were times when Appellant and the
victim were left alone together. Id. at 174-176, 194-201.
Ultimately, McGill and Appellant broke up. Id. at 180.
McGill related that one or two years after the relationship
ended the victim first disclosed to McGill that Appellant had
“touched her.” (N.T.1 at 187). When McGill asked what she meant,
the victim refused to provide further details and changed the
subject. Id. at 187, 204. McGill noticed a change in the victim at
- 10 -
J-A07038-21
the age of 10 or 11 years old when the victim became more angry,
less outgoing, more emotional, more forgetful, and more guarded.
Id. at 191-92. The changes also affected her grades. Id. at 192.
Last school year, McGill was called to school because the
victim was very emotional and was talking about committing
suicide. (N.T.1 at 180-81). The victim had written a note which
McGill read that stated the victim was raped. Id. at 182-83. That
same day, the victim was hospitalized due to her desire to self -
harm. Id. at 183-84. Later, McGill took the victim to the police
station. Id. at 188-89. While at the station, McGill called Appellant
and left messages stating she needed to talk to him about the
victim. Id. at 189. Appellant never called back, which McGill
thought was odd because he always called her back. Id. at 189-
90.
Suzanne Presley (“Presley”), a school psychologist, testified
that she spoke with the victim in the fall of 2018 to conduct a crisis
risk assessment because the victim was threatening suicide.
(N.T.1 at 213-14). During the assessment, the victim revealed
that she had been sexually abused when she was 8 years old. Id.
at 214-15. The victim further stated she did not realize what
happened until she watched a TV show and heard about sexual
abuse. Id. at 215. Although the victim was able to explain to
Presley what happened, the victim said she could not tell her
mother about the assault so Presley had the victim write it down.
Id. at 216. Because Presley was concerned the victim might hurt
herself, the victim was referred to crisis that same day. Id. at 215-
17. Presley then reported the information to ChildLine. Id. at 216.
Brian Brewer (“Brewer”), a nurse who assessed the victim
at Roxbury Treatment Center on October 4, 2018 because of
suicidal tendencies, testified that the victim appeared to be pretty
depressed and reported she was sexually abused by her mother's
former boyfriend starting at the age of 8. (N.T.2 at 5-7, 11, 16).
Brewer reported the victim's statements to the state. Id. at 19.
Mustafa Kaleem (“Kaleem”), a psychiatrist who treated the victim
at Roxbury, also testified that the victim reported she had been
sexually molested by her mother's former boyfriend and she was
having flashbacks. Id. at 96, 100, 104-05. The victim was
discharged to Philhaven for further treatment on October 19,
2018. Id. at 101.
Dr. Philip Rodenberger (“Rodenberger”), an attending
psychiatrist with Wellspan Philhaven Hospital, testified that he
evaluated the victim on November 1, 2018. (N.T.2 at 46- 49). The
victim reported that she was sexually abused multiple times by
her mother's former boyfriend when she was 8 years old and she
- 11 -
J-A07038-21
was having “violent flashbacks.” Id. at 49-50. Based on his
examination, Rodenberger diagnosed the victim with post
traumatic stress disorder with mood and behavioral instability. Id.
at 54. The psycho-social stressors included divorce of her
biological parents, history of sexual abuse, and dealing with
transgender issues. Id. at 55. Rodenberger did not find that the
victim was delusional, psychotic, or making things up. Id. at
54,64-65, 68.
Detective Ryan Hockley (“Hockley”), LCBP, received this
case through a Children and Youth Agency referral. (N.T.2 at 151).
Because the victim was at an inpatient facility, she was not
forensically interviewed. Id. at 155.3 When Hockley interviewed
the victim on November 26, 2018, the victim wrote down on a
note what she testified to at trial. Id. at 155-57.
Appellant testified at trial and stated he met McGill in 2006,
they lived on the same block, and they were in a casual
relationship. (N.T.2 at 201). Appellant moved into McGill's home
in 2006 or 2007, and acknowledged the victim resided there as
well. Id. at 202-03, 221-22. Appellant stated he moved out in
2008 when their relationship ended. Id. at 203. Appellant denied
ever touching the victim improperly. Id. at 210-11.4
In his Statement, Appellant claims there was no
corroborating evidence of the victim's allegations, there was no
timely reporting, there was no physical evidence, the victim did
not allege a specific date or time for the incidents, the victim had
serious ongoing psychiatric issues, and there were a number of
contradictions in the testimony. However, it was solely for the jury
to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and to resolve
conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. See Upshur. The jury
chose to believe the testimony of the victim and disbelieve
Appellant's testimony, after evaluating all of the concerns raised
by Appellant in his Statement.
Furthermore, there was additional evidence that tied
Appellant to the crimes. Appellant was in a relationship with McGill
at the time he committed these crimes, giving him access to the
victim. There were also times when Appellant was alone with the
victim, giving him the opportunity to commit these crimes. McGill
noted a change in the victim around the time the victim testified
that Appellant was raping and assaulting her, as the victim
became more angry, less outgoing, more emotional, more
forgetful, more guarded, and her grades began to suffer. The
victim also testified that she disclosed what Appellant had done to
multiple people over a period of time, and these disclosures were
- 12 -
J-A07038-21
corroborated by Mcllvaine, Presley, and several professionals who
examined the victim.
In this case, the jury's verdict was not so contrary to the
evidence as to shock one's sense of justice, nor was it against the
weight of the evidence. Thus, Appellant's claim must fail.
__
3 Julie Stover (“Stover”), a medical provider at the Lancaster
County Children's Alliance, testified that she physically examine
the victim on October 8, 2019, and nothing stood out to either
confirm or deny sexual abuse. (N.T.2 at 135, 139, 142-45).
However, Stover stated a normal exam would be expected when
the victim of a sexual assault was 8 years old at the time of the
alleged assault and the examination did not occur until the child
was 17 years old. Id. at 145, 149.
4 Cassandra Claiborne (“Claiborne”) testified she met Appellant in
2008 and they started living together in 2009. (N.T.2 at 181-83).
Appellant is her fiancé and they have four children together. Id.
at 185, 188. In response to the victim's testimony that one
incident occurred at Claiborne's house, and Claiborne returned
home while they were there, Claiborne stated she never returned
home and saw the victim with Appellant. Id. at 138-39, 151, 188.
However, Claiborne did acknowledge there were times she was
working when Appellant was not, and she would not have been
home with Appellant. Id. at 192.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/22/20, at 6-12.
As previously noted, inconsistencies in testimony are not sufficient to
warrant a new trial on grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence. See Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1080. Although Appellant has highlighted
some inconsistencies in the Commonwealth's evidence, the jury was permitted
to resolve any such discrepancies in the Commonwealth's favor. Assessing all
of the evidence presented at trial according to the governing principles cited
above, and in light of the trial court’s thorough analysis of this claim, we simply
cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that
- 13 -
J-A07038-21
the jury's verdict did not shock its sense of justice. Consequently, Appellant's
weight challenge fails. Accordingly, we uphold Appellant’s convictions.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/23/2021
- 14 -