We review a conviction based on circumstantial evidence under the same standard as one based on direct evidence, that is, a decision by the trial court will be affirmed "so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003). Instantly, Officer Visco testified to initiating a traffic stop and encountering Appellant in the City of Philadelphia.
Further, the Superior Court has "held that circumstantial evidence is reviewed by the same standard as direct evidence-that is that a decision by the trial court will be affirmed 'so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Walker, 874 A.2d at 678 (quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003)).
In adjudicating this claim, the Superior Court applied the Pennsylvania equivalent of the Jackson v. Virginia standard. See Resp't Ex. 24, ECF No. 12-7 at p.11 (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003)). See alsoEvans v. Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, 959 F.2d 1227, 1233 (3d Cir. 1992) (the test for insufficiency of the evidence is the same under both Pennsylvania and federal law).
Moreover, we review circumstantial evidence under the same standard as direct evidence, i.e., that a decision by the trial court will be affirmed "so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257, 263 (Pa. Super. 2016).
A trial court's decision on the legal sufficiency of evidence of constructive possession will be upheld "so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003)(citations omitted). When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
Significantly, "circumstantial evidence may be used to establish constructive possession of the [contraband]." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078, 1094 (Pa. 2011); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003) (noting that circumstantial evidence is reviewed by the same standard as direct evidence). However, a defendant's mere presence at the scene does not establish constructive possession of contraband.
Moreover, we have held that circumstantial evidence is reviewed by the same standard as direct evidence and a decision by the trial court will be affirmed "so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). The trial court addressed Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as follows:
Further, we have held that circumstantial evidence is reviewed by the same standard as direct evidence, and a decision by the trial court will be affirmed "so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). While mere presence of contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession, this Court has held that constructive possession can be found where a defendant, who lived in the house, had both access and control of the area where the contraband was found.
"When two equally reasonable and mutually inconsistent inferences can be drawn from the same set of circumstances, a jury must not be permitted to guess which inference it will adopt, especially when one of the two guesses may result in depriving a defendant of his life or his liberty." Commonwealth v. Hubbard , 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687, 692 (1977) (quoting Commonwealth v. Woong Knee New , 354 Pa. 188, 47 A.2d 450, 468 (1946) ); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 818 A.2d 514 (Pa.Super. 2003) (reversing judgment of sentence where "two opposing and mutually inconsistent inferences could be drawn from the facts presented herein").Appellant presented this argument in his concise statement.
"[W]e have held that circumstantial evidence is reviewed by the same standard as direct evidence—that is, that a decision by the trial court will be affirmed 'so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations omitted). Appellant's admission, combined with the observations made by Officer Meals of the contraband being discarded, links him to those items beyond a reasonable doubt.