Even if evidence is determined to be legally sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, a defendant may be given a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
How later courts described this case
- Even if evidence is determined to be legally sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, a defendant may be given a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
- with almost an identical factual situation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANDERINO, Justice
(concurring).
The majority states that a new trial may be awarded if the verdict is “against the weight of the evidence.” But what are the standards for determining whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence? How is the issue to be reviewed on appeal? If the weight of the evidence is not sufficient, it simply means that the Commonwealth’s evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In these circumstances a defendant cannot be tried a second time. If the weight of the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient, it is not entitled to a second crack in order to provide more weight and establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a first trial, either the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, or it is not. In the former *210 case, the conviction is proper. In the latter case, a discharge is necessary in view of double jeopardy protections.
In the appeal before us, the evidence was, in my opinion, sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s order arresting judgment should therefore be vacated and the matter remanded for consideration of whether any trial errors occurred which would warrant the grant of a new trial. It would not be trial error, however, if the only objection to the trial concerns weight of the evidence.