Commonwealth v. Toritto, 67 A.3d 29

En banc review granted to address sufficiency of evidence for accomplice liability in a narcotics sale case.
Toritto was convicted as an accomplice to delivery, but acquitted on conspiracy.
undisputed facts show Toritto drove co-defendant to the bar, sat near the undercover agent, and left the car keys for retrieval of drugs.
Witnesses testified Toritto overheard discussions and aided the sale by facilitating the transaction in various ways.
Trial court upheld the verdict and sentenced Toritto to seven to fourteen years; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove accomplice liability	Toritto	Commonwealth	No relief; evidence supported knowledge and intent to aid
Verdict against weight of the evidence	Toritto	Commonwealth	No weight reversal; court affirmed trial court’s discretion
Admission of undercover agent’s opinion on driver role	Toritto	Commonwealth	No reversible error; proper expert testimony and curative instructions applied
Prosecutorial misconduct claims	Toritto	Commonwealth	No reversible error; statements not prejudicial given instructions and context
Constitutionality of the mandatory minimum statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 7508)	Toritto	Commonwealth	Facially and as applied, statute rational and constitutional; no waiver for as-applied challenge

Commonwealth v. Stokes, 38 A.3d 846 (Pa.Super.2011) (sufficiency review and standard of proof in accomplice liability cases)
Commonwealth v. Kendricks, 30 A.3d 499 (Pa.Super.2011) (standard for sufficiency—view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa.2004) (aiding not required to be substantial; intent to aid suffices)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 716 A.2d 580 (Pa.1998) (definitions of accomplice liability and mens rea)
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa.2007) (necessity of proving intent to aid or promote crime by accomplice)