Com. v. Kent, S., Com. v. Kent, S. No. 2480 EDA 2016

On October 3, 2015, S. Kent allegedly followed and shot victim J.M. in Norristown after a marijuana sale; victim later transported to hospital and underwent surgery.
At the scene victim gave a limited description (two young Black males, hoodies, one with a fur hat) but did not immediately identify Kent; investigators later obtained a sequential eight-photo array.
On October 15, 2015, victim identified Kent from the photo array and again in-court at the April 20, 2016 bench trial; victim knew Kent from prior encounters and recognized his accent and bottom gold teeth.
Police recovered Kent’s phone with text messages referencing a ".40" and ammunition; Kent testified someone else used his phone—court found this testimony incredible.
Trial judge (bench trial) convicted Kent of multiple counts including aggravated assault, robbery, REAP, firearms offenses; Kent moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because of the delayed identification.
Trial court denied the post-sentence motion; the Superior Court affirmed, finding the trial court did not palpably abuse its discretion in crediting the victim’s explanation for the delay and the corroborating evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to victim's delayed identification	Commonwealth: victim’s delayed ID was credibly explained (fear of being labeled a "snitch"); photo array, accent, gold teeth, witness corroboration, and texts sufficiently corroborated ID	Kent: victim’s failure to identify immediately rendered later photo-array and in-court IDs unreliable; verdict shocks the conscience	Court: Denied new trial — trial judge did not abuse discretion; explanation for delay and corroborating evidence made the ID credible

Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (standard for reviewing weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (weight-of-evidence review is examination of trial court's exercise of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discrepancies between out-of-court and in-court IDs and how a factfinder may credit police testimony over recantation)
Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (trial court's denial of weight claim afforded deference)
Commonwealth v. Hunter, 768 A.2d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2001) (trier of fact free to accept or reject testimony)
Commonwealth v. Keaton, 729 A.2d 529 (Pa. 1999) (principles regarding appellate review of weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 471 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 1984) (new trial appropriate only when verdict so contrary to evidence as to shock one's sense of justice)
Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104 (Pa. 2004) (presumption of judge's impartiality and competency)
Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (recusal/abuse of discretion standard for judicial rulings)