Com. v. Tith, M., Com. v. Tith, M. No. 3720 EDA 2015

Michael Tith was charged with possession with intent to deliver (PWID) heroin and related offenses arising from controlled buys on August 20 and 21, 2013, and a search warrant executed August 23, 2013.
Officer Paul Rich testified he surveilled the August 20 controlled buy from about 100–200 feet away with binoculars, identified Tith as the seller, and the CI returned two small packets that tested positive for heroin.
Other officers (Yerges, Buitrago, Kidd) testified only about events on August 23 (warrant execution) and had limited or uncertain recollection of the earlier surveillance; no prerecorded buy money was recovered and initial reports lacked a physical description of Tith.
The trial court convicted Tith of PWID (August 20) and sentenced him to 1.5 years’ probation.
On post-sentence motion the trial court granted arrest of judgment, concluding inconsistencies among officer testimony created reasonable doubt and that the court, on review, doubted the Commonwealth’s proof of identity.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court impermissibly reweighed credibility in granting arrest of judgment.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Tith's Argument	Held
Did the trial court properly grant a post-verdict arrest of judgment for insufficient evidence by reexamining witness credibility?	Trial court misread the record and impermissibly reevaluated and second-guessed credibility; Officer Rich alone conducted the surveillance and his ID sufficed.	Inconsistencies among officers and gaps (no recovered buy money, lost sight briefly, no description in reports) left doubt as to identity—evidence insufficient.	Reversed: trial court impermissibly reweighed credibility; Officer Rich’s identification, accepted by the factfinder, was sufficient to support the PWID verdict.
Was identification by a single credible officer enough to sustain conviction?	Yes — proof of identity need not be flawless; positive identification by Officer Rich and heroin test results supported the verdict.	Identification testimony had uncertainties that bore on guilt and weight of evidence.	Held yes — identity need not be absolute; accepted testimony of Officer Rich sufficed when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth v. Marquez, 980 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standards for reviewing post-verdict motion in arrest of judgment and sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Melechio, 658 A.2d 1385 (Pa. Super. 1995) (sufficiency standard quoted for arrest of judgment)
Commonwealth v. Feathers, 660 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 1995) (trial court may not reweigh credibility when ruling on post-verdict motions)
Commonwealth v. Hickman, 309 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1973) (identity must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but need not be positive and certain)