Commonwealth v. Brockman

36 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Smith

    2024 Pa. Super. 122 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    It is well-settled that "in narcotics possession cases, the Commonwealth may meet its burden by showing actual, constructive, or joint constructive possession of the contraband." Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa.Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 868 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc)). Since investigators in this case did not find the drugs or drug paraphernalia on Appellee's person, the Commonwealth sought to establish that Appellee constructively possessed the cocaine, hydrocodone, digital scale and plastic baggies.

  2. Commonwealth v. Stewart

    1520 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 6, 2023)

    beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014)).

  3. Commonwealth v. Scott

    237 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2024)

    When reviewing a sufficiency claim, we construe "all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner," and the evidence is legally sufficient when it would "enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017). The Commonwealth may prove an offense by means of wholly circumstantial evidence, and the evidence presented "need not preclude every possibility of innocence." Id.

  4. Commonwealth v. Malik

    1894 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2024)

    Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017).

  5. Commonwealth v. Mays

    2183 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 17, 2024)

    "In Pennsylvania, the intent to deliver may be inferred from possession of a large quantity of controlled substance." [Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2018)] (quoting Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024, 1028 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

  6. Commonwealth v. White

    1382 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 1, 2024)

    Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017).

  7. Commonwealth v. Melendez

    No. J-S10010-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2019)

    The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014)). Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, the evidence at trial was clearly sufficient for the trial court to find the essential elements of delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt.

  8. Commonwealth v. Jenkins

    2024 Pa. Super. 292 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). "Evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law and, therefore, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 37 (Pa. 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213, 218 (Pa. 2006)).

  9. Commonwealth v. Griffin

    1711 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2024)

    When reviewing a sufficiency claim, we construe "all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner," and the evidence is legally sufficient when it would "enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017). The Commonwealth may prove an offense by means of wholly circumstantial evidence, and the evidence presented "need not preclude every possibility of innocence." Id.

  10. Commonwealth v. Lowry

    1034 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2024)

    Commonwealth v. Brockman, 167 A.3d 29, 38 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). "Evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law and, therefore, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary."