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