Com. v. Steele, C., Com. v. Steele, C. No. 1016 MDA 2016

Steele was tried (second trial) for burglary, criminal conspiracy (burglary), criminal trespass, and theft after Trades Cars & Trucks discovered approximately $10,000 missing.
Co-defendant Sue Ellen Leonhard (Steele's longtime paramour) testified she twice went with Steele to the dealership at night, had access to a hidden key, left before the theft, and later received a ~1-minute call from Steele around 5:00 A.M. in which he said the theft was successful.
Leonhard initially lied to police, attempted to cover the loss (replacing about $6,000 of the stolen funds), and had multiple prior crimen falsi convictions; she later cooperated and implicated Steele.
T‑Mobile records showed Steele placed a call from within the coverage area of the tower serving the dealership at about the time of the theft; phone records also showed multiple communications between Steele and Leonhard the night before and morning of the theft.
A jury convicted Steele on all counts; the trial court denied his motion for a new trial (weight) and sentenced him to 9–23 months; the Superior Court affirmed on the trial court’s opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight of the evidence	Commonwealth: jury credibility determinations are controlling; Leonhard’s testimony supported conviction	Steele: Leonhard was not credible (prior lies, crimes); verdict shocks sense of justice	Court: Denial of new trial affirmed; jury free to believe all/part/none of witness testimony; verdict not shocking
Sufficiency of the evidence (identity/perpetration)	Commonwealth: testimony + phone metadata placed Steele at/near scene and corroborated cooperation with Leonhard	Steele: Boilerplate challenge claiming insufficient proof he entered, conspired, or took money; argues Leonhard was unreliable	Court: Evidence sufficient when viewed in Commonwealth’s favor — co‑defendant testimony corroborated by call location and communications; convictions sustained

Com. v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review)
Armbruster v. Horowitz, 744 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 1999) (weight challenge concedes sufficiency)
Com. v. Murray, 597 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 1991) (appellate limitations on weight review from cold record)
Com. v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of testimony)
Commonwealth v. Lovette, 450 A.2d 975 (Pa. 1982) (sufficiency test viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Com. v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requirements for a properly specific concise statement of insufficiency)
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (credibility/identification challenges go to weight, not sufficiency)
Com. v. VanDiviner, 962 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2009) (role of jury in assessing witness credibility)