Com. v. Muhammad, M., Com. v. Muhammad, M. No. 724 EDA 2017

On October 2, 2008, Rasheed “Pacman” Harrod was shot in the back of the head after exiting a deli in Philadelphia and later died; the shooting was witnessed by Brian Duran.
Duran initially did not report the shooting, then implicated Malik Muhammad during a federal proffer and later gave a statement to homicide detectives.
While both were being transported for a preliminary hearing, Muhammad allegedly threatened Duran and associates assaulted Duran; Muhammad was later incarcerated with Frank Herbert.
Herbert testified that Muhammad admitted the killing in jail and described details (hood pulled tight, leaving the store) and efforts to silence witnesses.
Muhammad denied the shooting at trial, claimed Duran falsely accused him over a drug dispute, and denied knowing Herbert; the bench convicted Muhammad of first-degree murder, PIC, and firearms offenses and sentenced him to life plus additional years.
On appeal Muhammad challenged sufficiency and weight of the evidence; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court opinion that (1) credibility challenges are weight issues not sufficiency, (2) Muhammad waived the weight claim by not preserving it, and (3) the evidence was sufficient even if uncorroborated eyewitness testimony and a jailhouse confession were the primary proofs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for murder and related charges	Commonwealth: evidence (eyewitness ID by Duran + Herbert jailhouse admission + circumstantial facts) proved all elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Muhammad: identification unreliable (saw partial face at night via rearview mirror), key witnesses are convicted felons and biased by plea deals; Herbert didn’t know him at time of crime	Affirmed — court treated Muhammad's credibility attack as a weight claim; even if addressed, testimony of a single credible witness can sustain conviction and Herbert’s testimony plus facts sufficed to prove first-degree murder and firearms offenses
Weight of the evidence (verdict against weight)	Commonwealth: trial judge acted as factfinder and reasonably weighed conflicting testimony	Muhammad: verdict shocks conscience because witnesses were inconsistent, biased, or not eyewitnesses	Waived for appeal (no timely Rule 607 motion); in any event, trial judge found testimony credible and verdict did not shock the conscience

Goins v. Commonwealth, 867 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for sufficiency review)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994) (credibility assessment not part of sufficiency review)
Small v. Commonwealth, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999) (credibility-based challenges framed as sufficiency claims are actually weight claims)
Keaney v. Commonwealth, 601 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 1992) (a single witness’s uncorroborated testimony can support a conviction)
Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (appellate review of weight claim is review of exercise of discretion)
Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (weight-of-the-evidence standard and deference to trial court)
Sherwood v. Commonwealth, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (failure to preserve weight claim by motion bars appellate review)