Com. v. Amy, W., Com. v. Amy, W. No. 1813 MDA 2016

Appellant Wesley Amy was a vocational computer teacher who communicated privately with three female students and solicited nude photographs, primarily from minor L.W., via Facebook and in class.
On Nov 25, 2013, Amy sent L.W. a tinyurl link to an explicit image and later claimed the link was "hijacked;" he also urged L.W. to send nude photos and implied grade changes in exchange.
In April–May 2014, additional misconduct (including leaving a flash drive labeled “Plan B” and asking another student to put nude photos on it) triggered an investigation and criminal charges.
Amy was tried on consolidated dockets, testified in his defense, and was convicted of, inter alia, dissemination of obscene materials to a minor, attempted unlawful contact with a minor, and attempted sexual abuse of children.
He was sentenced to an aggregate 2–4 years incarceration plus 4 years probation; post-sentence motion was denied by operation of law and this timely appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Amy)	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing to give a renunciation jury instruction for attempt charges	No error; evidence did not support voluntary, complete renunciation that avoided the crime	Amy argued his cessation of Facebook contact on April 28, 2014, and testimony of a change of heart warranted the instruction	Affirmed: renunciation instruction not warranted because substantial steps were completed and cessation was passive, not an affirmative prevention of the crime
Whether evidence was sufficient/weight against conviction for knowingly disseminating obscene material to a minor	Evidence sufficient; jury could infer knowledge from timing, content, and Amy’s statements (e.g., "unless you want a shock")	Amy claimed the tinyurl was "hijacked" and he did not knowingly send porn; weight claim argued jury improperly discredited him	Affirmed: sufficiency supported (jury reasonably disbelieved hijack explanation); weight challenge failed—trial court’s discretionary decision not to disturb verdict upheld

Commonwealth v. Demarco, 809 A.2d 256 (Pa. 2002) (trial court must instruct on a requested defense if supported by evidence)
Commonwealth v. Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements of criminal attempt and renunciation principles)
Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (court need not give instructions not rationally applied to the facts)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sufficiency review standard)
Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503 (Pa. 2017) (Commonwealth may sustain proof by circumstantial evidence; standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Reed, 9 A.3d 1138 (Pa. 2010) (unlawful contact with a minor does not require commission of the underlying enumerated offense)
Commonwealth v. Gilliam, 417 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 1980) (discussing substantial step test for attempts)
Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate review of trial court's weight-of-the-evidence rulings)
Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (deference owed to trial court on weight claims)