Com. v. Perry, J., Com. v. Perry, J. No. 585 MDA 2016

Eighteen-month-old L.L. suffered severe head injuries (subdural hematoma, multilayer retinal hemorrhages, brain swelling) and required emergency neurosurgery on Oct. 28, 2014.
Joshua Perry was the sole caregiver in the home that day; mother had left for work and returned only after Perry told her to come to the hospital.
Commonwealth expert (Dr. Kent Hymel) opined injuries resulted from violent head motion and occurred very shortly before L.L.’s clinical deterioration; he rejected a crib-fall or self-inflicted explanation.
Defense expert (Dr. Robert Zimmerman) agreed trauma caused the injuries but testified timing could be 1–3 days earlier and a lucid interval was possible.
Jury convicted Perry of aggravated assault (serious bodily injury) and endangering the welfare of a child; sentence 66–132 months.
Perry appealed raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence (causation) and (2) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; trial court denied post-sentence motions and appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: was there sufficient evidence to prove Perry caused L.L.’s injuries?	Commonwealth: Expert timing + Perry was sole caregiver during critical window establish causation; circumstantial evidence suffices.	Perry: Causation speculative; defense expert created reasonable alternative timing/accident scenarios.	Affirmed: Crediting Commonwealth’s expert and circumstantial proof, evidence supports convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Weight of the evidence: should a new trial be granted because verdict shocks justice?	Commonwealth: Jury verdict reasonable based on expert and circumstantial evidence.	Perry: Jury improperly discredited defense expert; verdict rests on speculation and is against the weight.	Affirmed: Trial court reasonably declined a new trial; jury credibility determinations not overturned absent abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Doughty, 126 A.3d 951 (Pa. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and allowance of circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Commonwealth may meet burden with circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2014) (medical expert opinion to requisite degree of certainty constitutes evidence)
Commonwealth v. Passarelli, 789 A.2d 708 (Pa. Super. 2001) (upholding conviction where competing expert testimony existed in child-abuse context)
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2006) (weight claim cannot be mere repetition of sufficiency argument)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for appellate review of weight claim and abuse of discretion rule)