Com. v. Johnson, J., 2454 EDA 2015

On Sept. 18, 2014, Martin Byng was assaulted by a group of five men; Byng testified he was beaten for ~15–25 minutes and his phone taken.
Police responded, Byng identified two suspects (Appellee Jamil Johnson and co-defendant Derrick Harling) after seeing them at a nearby house; both were arrested there.
At a joint jury trial in July 2015, the jury convicted Johnson and Harling of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault but acquitted them of the underlying aggravated assault and other charges.
Defense had moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Commonwealth’s case and renewed it after the verdict; the trial court granted post‑verdict acquittal on the conspiracy charge, citing Byng’s inconsistent testimony and problematic identifications.
The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the acquittal was legally erroneous and appealable because reversal would only reinstate the jury verdict (no double jeopardy problem).
The Superior Court reversed the trial court, holding the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and remanded for sentencing.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s post‑verdict grant of judgment of acquittal was appealable (double jeopardy)	Appeal is proper because reversal would reinstate the jury verdict, not require retrial	Granting acquittal is an acquittal barring appellate review under double jeopardy (citing Gibbons)	Appealable: court follows precedent allowing government appeals that merely reinstate a jury verdict; no double jeopardy barrier
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to support conspiracy to commit aggravated assault	Evidence (Byng’s ID, group assault, defendants fled & were found together) permits inference of agreement and an overt act; jury verdict should stand	Byng’s testimony was inconsistent and identification unreliable; evidence insufficient as a matter of law	Evidence sufficient: circumstantial proof and inferences could support conspiracy; trial court erred in granting acquittal; jury verdict reinstated

Commonwealth v. Gibbons, 784 A.2d 776 (Pa. 2001) (pre‑verdict acquittal appeal barred by double jeopardy)
Commonwealth v. Feathers, 660 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 1995) (government may appeal post‑verdict legal rulings that reinstate jury verdict without violating double jeopardy)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1978) (balancing government’s right to appeal legal rulings and defendant’s double jeopardy interests)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements and circumstantial proof of conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Minnis, 458 A.2d 231 (Pa. Super. 1983) (inconsistencies in witness testimony generally affect weight, not sufficiency)
Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820 (Pa. 1954) (jury instruction on witness identification credibility)