Commonwealth v. Clay, 619 Pa. 423

Appellees visited H.S. at her dorm in West Chester, Pa., signed in, and stayed in her room after a social gathering around 3:30 a.m.
Testimony showed multiple sexual acts, including vaginal, oral, and possibly anal intercourse, among Appellees and H.S.; some acts were allegedly nonconsensual.
H.S. reported the incident to friends and campus authorities; a sexual-assault examination found physical marks consistent with assault.
Appellees were convicted of sexual assault, indecent assault, and false imprisonment after a three-day jury trial; Claybrook and Lewis testified the encounters were consensual.
Trial court denied a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, but indicated the verdicts might shock the Superior Court’s conscience and noted potential for a remand for new trial.
The Superior Court reversed, holding the weight-of-the-evidence standard had been applied incorrectly and that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, then vacated the convictions; this Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct abuse-of-discretion standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Superior Court’s review proper for weight of the evidence?	Commonwealth argues the Superior Court substituted its own view of facts.	Appellees contend the Superior Court properly applied abuse-of-discretion and reviewed the record.	No; the Superior Court misapplied the standard and substituted its own conclusions.
Did the Superior Court properly apply Brown and Widmer?	Commonwealth asserts deference to trial court’s discretion was required.	Appellees argue the standard required a thorough review of the record with deference to trial court.	No; the court failed to adhere to the abuse-of-discretion framework and invaded trial/jury functions.
Should this Court remand for reconsideration under the correct standard?	Commonwealth seeks proper appellate review under Widmer/Brown.	Appellees rely on trial court’s findings to sustain weight-of-evidence verdicts.	Yes; remand for reconsideration under the correct abuse-of-discretion standard.

Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa.1994) (Pa. 1994) (palpable abuse of discretion; deference to trial court where record supports decision)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (2000) (Pa. 2000) (weight-of-evidence standard is discretion-based; not unfettered review)
Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa.1976) (Pa. 1976) (new trial when verdict is against the weight of the evidence; grave concern for justice)
Brown v. Thompson (quotations cited), 507 Pa. 592, 493 A.2d 669 (Pa.1985) (Pa. 1985) (explanation of palpable abuse and appellate-review standard)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 444 Pa. Super. 570, 664 A.2d 582 (Pa. Super. 1995) (Pa. Super. 1995) (teacher of standard; abrogated on other grounds)