*1 Although goal this be effectu- person. the confined would transfer, if an intent to degree to a certain read with ated risk, quite one that could be substan- there would still be tial, acquire proscribed such person that a confined would intent to brought prison if into the without substances even purpose In such cases the of the statute transfer the same. sought prevent- and the harm to be would be left unfulfilled language does noteworthy occur. It is ed would into” intent to trans- language “brings not qualify fer to an inmate. enact- upon interpret legislative are called
When we logical to construe its terms attempt ment we will general purpose. to effectuate its trying fashion while also straight I statute is language subject believe bringing the enumerated substances prohibits forward and or not the regardless onto whether prison property to transfer to a individual has an intent substance such, dis- or not. As I would reverse the order prisoner remand to the trial missing charge contraband court.
CIRILLO, Judge, President ROWLEY and MONTEMURO, JJ., join.
Submitted Filed 1989. Feb. 4,May
Reargument Denied *3 Marcone, Media, appellant. for Frank J. McAndrews, Attorney, Assistant District
Dennis C. Com., appellee. for Wayne, POPOVICH, CAVANAUGH, JJ.
Before McEWEN POPOVICH, Judge: of sentence entered appeal judgment
This is an from the 28, 1988, County Court by on March the Delaware Smagala, John follow- against appellant, Pleas Common of a con possession charges on the ing his conviction deliver,1 possession (cocaine) intent with trolled substance substance,2 parapherna possession a controlled Instant of a firearm without license.4 possession lia and erroneously trial court argues that ly, of evidence on certain items suppress motion to denied his result of an as a the evidence was seized ground that, if even He contends further illegal search. seized, his conviction on properly on insufficient charge was based intent to deliver with alternative, against the evidence, or, the verdict was in the determined review, we have Upon weight of the evidence. the conviction insufficient that the evidence co to deliver the appellant for the Thus, sentence judgment we vacate caine. and remand for to deliver conviction with intent of a controlled substance on the resentencing charge. sitting court by as found the trial
The facts of this case opinion in its as follows: were set forth jury without 3, 1987, police p.m. February 8:50 approximately At De- Township Police Ridley Turner of the Phillip officer located at 817 East MacDade drove a house partment, Boulevard, County, Pennsyl- Township, Delaware Ridley in the parked Ford Maverick yellow observed a vania and house, a Mrs. had Henry, driveway. The owner going away to be that she was advised this home at address. and that no one would be vacation prop- check the police periodically requested She *4 February 8:50 on p.m. Prior to during her absence. erty re- this service as 3rd, performed had Officer Turner occasions, however, no vehicle had on numerous quested Officer Turner When premises. been observed 3rd, also February he driveway in the on saw this vehicle 780-113(a)(30). § 1. 35 Pa.S.A. 780-113(a)(6).
2. 35 Pa.S.A. § 780-113(a)(32). §
3. 35 Pa.S.A. 6106(a). 18 Pa.C.S.A. § up garage located on the premises observed boarded light shining through the cracks in the door where was and around the windows. station, informing
Officer Turner radioed the them that he at this location for a and would be while check requesting registration Believing on the vehicle. afoot, activity might that criminal Officer Turner and to look inside. approached garage attempted to see into the Being garage, hearing unable but move- inside, Turner on ment Officer knocked the door. After attempted no he the door. receiving response, open The door locked. Officer Turner then heard a voice was garage asking from inside the who was outside. Officer that it Po- responded “Ridley Township Turner was approximately lice.” After a three to four delay minutes, Defendant, opened by Smaga- the door was John opened, la. When the door Officer Turner could see a in the partly garage. disassembled vehicle three to During delay, the aforementioned four minute Ford Turner was notified that the Maverick was Officer on 14th by a Mr. Krauss who resided Street owned Turner asked Defendant of Chester. Officer what City in the doing garage. responded he Defendant was building using it to cars. repair he had rented produce asked to documentation to confirm his When none. produce Defendant could story, informed Defendant as to he why Officer Turner Defendant if he could “look around.” there and asked “Sure, I replied, problem Defendant have no with that.” (N.T. 12-13). this time pgs. By Dryden 11/17/87 Officer Township Department Police had arrived Ridley of the garage outside of the with Defendant. and he remained Turner, to the pursuant permission given by Officer Defendant, to “look around”. garage entered a workbench garage the left hand side
On approached on Officer Turner light with a overhead. bag glassine of it he observed a small top bench screens in size of varying small wire mesh filled with *5 bag inch in The con- ¥2 to ¥4 diameter. approximately officer also 50 to 60 screens. The approximately tained numerous several hundred burned matches and observed glass containing a wire pipe matchbooks small glass pipe contained residue screen inside barrel. a controlled appeared to Officer Turner what substance. in which at open space below the bench was an
Directly Turner could look inside open an cardboard box. Officer he standing. he Inside this box the box from where was box, approximately high. a smaller one inch observed glassine bag this smaller Officer Turner observed a box containing powdery white substance which Officer suspected Turner to be a controlled substance. Also containing the smaller were two bundles a total of 77 box All glassine bags. glassine bags small of these contained appeared what to be the residue of controlled substances. garage Turner then left and Defendant was Officer placed under arrest. prior placing
Pursuant to the arrest and Defendant vehicle, in the Defendant police was searched. following being resulted in the items found in search bill; (2) (1) up Defendant’s a rolled a razor pockets: $20 blade; (3) glassine bag containing grams a small .8 cocaine; (4) (5) currency; United States four $834 cards, approximately index 5 inches size contain- ing names with numerical values next names. Thereafter, Defendant taken to the station. police was police automobile towed to the The Ford Maverick station, safekeeping. police station for At the an invento- performed search on the Ford Maverick. Defen- ry During search. inventory dant consented to this search, a loaded Smith and Wesson 9 found pistol semi-automatic under the driver’s seat. millimeter weapon, that he owned the but did Defendant indicated subsequent it. A check with carry not have a license to Police confirmed that the Defen- State Pennsylvania weapon. carry dant did not have a license Defendant, foregoing, Smagala, As a result of the John charged informations, criminal In- separate on four *6 knowing or intentional charging formation No. 309A-87 substances, wit, (35 cocaine possession controlled 780-113[a](30)), CSA Information No. 309B-87 Pa. § possession deliver charging with intent to controlled sub- (35 780-113[a](30)), Pa. CSA Information stance/cocaine § (18 charging drug paraphernalia No. 309C-87 Pa. CSA charging and No. 780-113[a](32)), Information 309D-87 § (18 a license of firearms without Pa. CSA possession 6106(a)). § Sup- 1987 Defendant filed Motion to
On October alleged In press. that Motion Defendant that the Febru- 3,1987 premises occupied search of the Defendant ary Folsom, Boulevard, Pennsylvania, at 817 East MacDade addition, Defendant illegal. alleged was In improp-: of the Ford Maverick automobile was also search all seized as a requested er. Defendant that A suppressed. suppression result of searches be illegal 4,1987. At hearing was held November the conclusion hearing, Motion denied. Defendant’s 17,1987 a trial was commenced. non-jury On November presented wit- During trial the Commonwealth two nesses, Palo, Phillip Turner and Charles Officers Turner tes- Department. Police Officer Ridley Township surrounding facts concerning tified and circumstances 3,1987 on he identi- February searches conducted and (C-l through exhibits fied the various Commonwealth C-14), most were the items seized as a result of which qualified as an the three Officer Palo was searches. investigation in the field of narcotic expert witness sub- sale distribution controlled packaging, concerning significance in detail stances. He testified as to the they exhibits related Commonwealth’s In addi- of controlled substances. sale and distribution items tion, he of these opinion offered the sub- more with controlled consistent addition, posses- he opinion offered the stances. of these items was more consistent with sion deliver than with the intent to of controlled substances 18,1987, use. On November Defendant testimony, of all of the at the conclusion Informations. guilty found all 20, 1987, counsel filed time- Defendant’s On November motions denied by motions. These were ly post-trial 4,1988. 28,1988 Defen- On March February dated Order No. 309B-87 to incar- on Information dant was sentenced for a County period ceration in the Delaware Prison nor more than 2 minus one years not less than months 309B-87, Defendant was sen- Information No. day. On probation. tenced to a two Sentence was year concurrent regard With to the suspended on Information 8090-87. sentence, of his fourteen jail year history, because work 6:80 furloughed Mondays Defendand was from a.m. *7 p.m. employment. 8:00 so as to not his Fridays, jeopardize The sentence included a treatment provision also probation parole. as a condition of both First, will contention that the appellant’s we address during the search of the should have garage evidence seized to the search was not suppressed been since Ms consent governs a given. The standard of review which voluntarily has been set forth as ruling suppress on motion follows: determine reviewing suppress,
In a motion to we must findings of the supports the record the factual whether court, as well as determine the reasonable- suppression there- legal the inferences and conclusions drawn ness of determining supports whether the record from. fact, accept we must Common- findings court’s so much of the evidence of the wealth’s evidence and as, read in the context of the record as a defense fairly Weik, v. remains uncontradicted. Commonwealth whole 44, (1987); Common- 560, 561, 45 Pa.Super. 360 521 A.2d 927, 423, 428-29, 446 A.2d Eliff, wealth v. Pa.Super. 300 (1982). 929-30 Lemanski, 332, 342-343, v. Pa.Super. 365
Commonwealth
v.
also,
Commonwealth
1085,
(1987).
1089
See
529 A.2d
(1988).
Hamlin, 503 Pa.
210,
v. us and stated: (1973), facts similar to those before reviewed of a search is not subject that when the only We hold a search on the attempts justify and the State custody consent, Amend- the Fourth and Fourteenth of his basis that the consent was that it demonstrate require ments or and not the result of duress given, voluntarily fact coercion, question Voluntariness express implied. or circumstances, and from all the of fact to determined be is a right of a to refuse knowledge the subject’s while account, is not prosecution into taken factor prerequisite as a knowledge such required to demonstrate consent. establishing voluntary 2059, 248-249, at 36 Schneckloth, 412 93 S.Ct. U.S. Albrecht, 510 also, v. at 875. See Commonwealth L.Ed.2d 764, (1986); v. 603, 612, Commonwealth Pa. 511 A.2d 336, (1983); Markman, Pa.Super. 66, 73, A.2d Lowery, (1982). 245, 248-249 findings of following made the court suppression Turner’s the record. Officer supported by
fact are by presence aroused suspicions initially were Henry of Mrs. premises on the vehicle which, the officer’s garage her emanating from light The officer and vacant. have been dark knowledge, should *8 he door, and, response, no receiving garage on the knocked then asked who appellant the door. attempted open to he a member there, Turner announced was and Officer was the opened The appellant Police.” “Ridley Township Officer Eventually, himself. door and identified garage To if “look around.” he could appellant Turner asked the “Sure, problem I no have which, responded, appellant the the surveyed premises then The officer with that.” the standard Applying view. found,, plain the evidence entirely facts, find it was Schneckloth, to those we supra, appellant conclude that the court to for the reasonable
475
garage.5
consented to the
voluntarily
search
the
appellant
next asserts that
the evidence ob
person
tained from his
and his
suppressed
vehicle should be
the
the
on
basis that
evidence was
as a result of
seized
an
illegal
Having
arrest.
determined that initial search of the
garage
search,
a valid
is quite
consent
it
clear that the
warrantless arrest of the appellant
supported
by the
Ohio,
cause. Beck v.
existence of probable
89,
379 U.S.
85
223,
(1964);
Finally,
appellant
asserts
legal
evidence was
to
ly
support
insufficient
his
charge
conviction
of a
controlled
substance
deliver.6
if,
“Evidence
legally
sufficient to
verdict when
light
viewed
most favorable
the Commonwealth
making
flowing
all
reasonable inferences
there
from, the fact finder could find each element of the offense
v. Aulisio,
beyond
reasonable doubt.
514 Pa.
(1987).”
Wienckowski, 153, 160, 866, Pa.Super. 371 537 A.2d 869 (1988). agree cannot with the trial court’s determina- We justifies tion that the evidence conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. While some present evidence of distribution of cocaine is and evidence is beyond dispute, the evidence before us quantum beyond far short of the sufficient to sustain a a intent to reasonable doubt conviction deliver. 780- under 35 Pa.S.A. charged
The crime § 113(a)(30) provides pertinent part:
(a) following causing acts and the thereof within hereby prohibited: are Commonwealth (30) act, manufacture, Except by as authorized this or with intent to manufacture or delivery, deliver, by person registered a controlled not substance act, practitioner registered under this or a not or licensed board, or appropriate knowingly creating, State or intent to a counter- delivering possessing with deliver feit controlled substance. law, intent to inferred Pennsylvania may
Under deliver be large quantity from of a of controlled sub- 216, 223, Santiago, stances. Commonwealth v. 462 Pa. Pagan, Commonwealth v. 440, (1975); 315 340 A.2d 444 7, 321, (1983); A.2d 322 Pa.Super. 461 287, (1983). 289 Similar- Bagley, inferred where may of intent to deliver ly, absence a small amount of the controlled substance was discov- only 323; 11, 461 A.2d at Pagan, Pa.Superior ered. Ct. at Gill, (1980) 1, 5, A.2d 490 Pa. (small per- consistent with amount of controlled substance distribution). use, not sonal seized from the following evidence was
Instantly, cocaine, gram 0.8 garage appellant’s person: and the bill, blade, dollar a small amount of up twenty razor a rolled soda, tubes, mesh glass pipe, test wire bicarbonate matches, of used screens, hundreds hundreds burnt “Klennex,” names and numerical four index cards with *10 sheets”), bundles of (“tally two them amounts written Also, in cash. used, and glassine baggies $884.00 reusable in the appel- under the seat handgun was found a loaded lant’s locked vehicle. unequivocal facts reveals
A sense review of the common use, possessed personal the cocaine for appellant ly The 0.8 of possessed only appellant not distribution.7 cocaine, personal consistent with a small amount gram and testimony trial indicated that test tubes use. Expert cocaine in the of soda are used convert bicarbonate form, rock “crack.” into cocaine the powder form inside of glass pipe is then smoked in a cocaine rock Instantly, garage the work bench mesh screen. a wire the appel and hundreds of burnt matches was covered with tools to create smoke possessed necessary lant all personal use “crack.” Those facts are consistent with Also, razor up twenty a rolled dollar bill cocaine. The Common person. on the appellant’s were found blade was used to testified that razor blade expert wealth’s into then rolled currency “lines” and divide the cocaine through inhale those lines cocaine user’s was used to Also, found on nostrils. numerous used “Klennex” were glass pipe was located. top the work bench where use. The Again, peisonal facts are consistent those leads us to the unavoidable conclu totality of the evidence either to smoke cocaine sion that the intended or it. inhale glassine baggies to the com- points
The Commonwealth
for
as evidence
monly
package
used to
cocaine
distribution
However,
glassine baggies
all of
to deliver.
used, and,
are
although they
generally
been previously
had
reusable,
baggies had been dam-
many
particular
of these
an
future
use
such
extent that
use
aged
previous
also
impossible.
distribution would
Proietto,
We note our decision in circumstances,
that,
(1976) recognized
under certain
drugs merely
may
for
be in
even
known
dealer
may
drugs
personal
held for
use
be from
and that those
use
drugs
very
cache of
destined
distribution.
same
points
large
to the
amount of cash on the appellant’s
person. Yet, there is no evidence of record to show that the
currency
product
was the
of drug distribution. The Com-
argues
monwealth
that the appellant possessed a handgun
to protect his cash and drugs found on
person.
his
How-
ever, the handgun was found under the seat of the appel-
lant’s car after an
search of
inventory
the car
at the
If,
station.
as the Commonwealth argues and the trial
court implicitly agrees,
the handgun
to pro-
tect
drugs,
cash and
is it
logical
not
handgun would have been inside the garage with the appel-
lant, accessible at a moment’s notice? Finally,
the Com-
*11
monwealth offers the tally' sheets as evidence of intent to
deliver. While this evidence is consistent
drug
with
distri-
bution,
this evidence is not sufficient alone to justify a
conviction for
with intent to deliver. See Pagan,
315 Pa.Superior
11,
Ct. at
To be with the facts, aid of additional the evidence herein support could an inference that the appellant was in involved the of However, distribution narcotics. the evidence as insufficient; it stands is clearly there was no evidence of a narcotics, controlled of buy no evidence marked currency used a controlled buy, no evidence the appellant’s possession of a quantity cocaine consist- distribution, ent with no weight evidence of scales nor testimony an informant identifying the appellant as a drug dealer. Significantly, police subsequently searched the appellant’s residence and found no evidence or distribution use. The evidence in present case does not rise to the remotely level of produced evidence the cases which the trial court and the Commonwealth cite in conviction, of the as demonstrated follow- ing discussion of those cases.
In Commonwealth v. Sweeting, 626, 364 Pa.Super. 528 (1987), A.2d 978 the evidence was sufficient to support a
479 substance. deliver controlled with Therein, methamphetamine to sell defendant intended when, fact, the defendant trooper an undercover state The court held meperidine trooper. to the sold mistakenly precise about the chemi- mistaken belief did not the evidence the substance render cal nature of mistake as present case does not involve insufficient. no evidence of a direct sale to identity drug’s exists. public officer or a member Speaks, Pa.Super. In sufficiently (1986), A.2d we held that possessed marijuana defendant demonstrated The evidence revealed the defen- the intent to deliver it. bags totalling grams, 65.5 marijuana dant six of marijua- materials used in the sale packaging commonly na, hours of the buy forty-eight a controlled occurred within warrant, from of the search marked bills execution during the search and the buy controlled were recovered appellant present buy. Instantly, at the controlled cocaine, a small amount of appellant possessed only of narcotics buy there was no evidence of a controlled drugs. link the distribution of would Lacey, (1985), we found that the evidence sufficient to drug paraphernalia a conviction *12 holding the intent to of Lacey, Clearly, with deliver. the supra, except portion inapposite presently, is that object’s held an use is expert testimony concerning that admissible. Davis, Commonwealth v.
In 480 A.2d Pa.Super. (1984), we found the that evidence was sufficient posses- on of charge the defendant’s conviction the the sion with intent to Probable cause for search deliver. of of buy was based on the controlled worth heroin $100.00 and on by from defendant a reliable informant the fact the the on similar charges defendant had been convicted search, During the was found previously. the defendant heard, flushing was exiting the bathroom where a commode and a small of amount heroin was recovered from the search, commode. As a of result discovered a large quantity of drugs, drug paraphernalia in used of drugs, distribution over in cash and $2600.00 several guns. Instantly, the quantity drugs small, of and there was no controlled buy or confidential The informant. seized of currency amount, a considerable lesser the drug paraphernalia was consistent use rather than distribution.
In
Harris,
Our current
supported
decision
our
clearly
prior
Therein,
decision in
Pagan, supra.8
defendant was
(1982)
Bagley,
A of the trial court’s review no evidence there was simply overlooked fact current distribution of linking appellant presented cocaine; rather, testimony the expert focused on the court drug with distribu some of the evidence was consistent that to past. opines trial court sometime tion insufficient would have present evidence was determine that the requiring prove Commonwealth to effect of larger part quantity drags actually small and would have distributed already which had been quantity efficient rewarding drug dealers who practical effect simply 11. This is Tr.Ct.Op., p. product. distribute their ly any there direct evidence9 not the case. Had been narcotics, currently in distribution was involved appellant charge. Bagley, guilty the intent to deliver render a verdict of and, likewise, too we here disagreed with the Commonwealth we drug disagree. appellant an amount of the Instantly, the only personal use consistent speculative. drug distribution involvement buy drugs, marked By we a controlled direct evidence mean testimony identifying the as currency buy, from a controlled scales, dealer, bags, undamaged glassine et weight unused and cetera. *14 then even a small amount of cocaine would have as sufficed the basis for an inference of However, intent to deliver. the Commonwealth was unable to present any evidence would, which without the most tenuous of assumptions,10 support the court’s determination that grams 0.8 of cocaine was for the purposes present of distribu See, Gill, tion. (accepting at 4 that appellant may have delivered substance in past, absent evidence of intent to seized, distribute the specific packet drugs of intent to deliver may inferred.) Therefor, not be find we evidence was insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt the appellant’s conviction oh the charge possession of of cocaine with the deliver. we Accordingly, portion vacate of of judgment dealing sentence charge intent to deliver and remand for resentenc possession on the ing of a charge. controlled substance Judgment in part, part affirmed vacated in and remanded for sentencing in provisions accordance with the of this Opinion. relinquished. Jurisdiction is
CAVANAUGH, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion.
CAVANAUGH, Judge, concurring and dissenting: I concur of part majority opinion af- firms the judgment of sentence on the conviction for posses- of sion a I controlled substance. respectfully dissent from the reversal judgment sentence on the conviction a controlled substance with intent to deliv- er. reviewing challenge a to the sufficiency the evi-
dence,
guided
we are
rule
by the
that evidence is legally
if,
sufficient
verdict when
viewed
the light
Commonwealth,
most favorable to the
and making all rea-
assumption
10. One
is
such
evidenced
the trial court’s statement:
“Obviously,
just prior
if Officer Turner had confronted Defendant
transaction,
his last
Defendant would have had in his
more
grams
something
than 0.8
cocaine
less than
$834.00 U.S.
currency.” Tr.Ct.Op., p. 11-12.
therefrom,
could find
flowing
jury
inferences
sonable
reasonable
present beyond
the offense
element of
each
Wienckowski,
v.
doubt. Commonwealth
v.
Griffin,
(1988);
A.2d 866
(1986), certiorari denied
553,
The below proved In the case the Commonwealth that instant of quantity in of a small co Defendant was at time Defendant proved It also that the same caine. sheets, commonly by drug of tally in used was dealers, used for money, glassine bags amount of large all of Defen gun, a loaded distribution to the reasonable inference that give dant concedes rise in of narcotics.1 engaged he was the distribution at 352: “a common opinion page The states majority that reveals the unequivocally sense review of the facts use, not distri- possessed the cocaine appellant that the appellant counsel for the indicates bution.” Even this, stating appel- the goes page at of beyond evidence lant’s brief: of the defendant’s same glassine was in distribution had under circumstances consistent no While the Defendant Opinion been difficulty time bags distributed. there that the 0.8 in this case arises was drugs. brief in is [******] the of court evidence engaged gun only (Emphasis support the below gram are a small amount in the tally sufficient of with the use out of sheets, added.) Surrick, distribution of his part Defendant post-trial to the of a the give rise J. of fact that the Defendant quotes money, larger controlled substance motions, was drugs, narcotics, to quantity which from engaged in inferences the numerous while as follows: pages there at that 7-8 the the is Accepting all light evidence in the most favor- Commonwealth, able all that can be found Appellant that engaged in the sale drugs.
Since there no evidence that Appellant was sale engaged arrest, at drugs the time of his most can be Appellant found is that had sold drugs the past. To prove guilt be sufficient possession with the beyond deliver a reasonable doubt, evidence, there must be some slight, however link the in the drugs Appellant’s possession present to a intent to (Emphasis added.) deliver.
Appellant argues
although the evidence established
that he had
engaged
selling
been
drugs,
he
too
an
small
amount
the time of his arrest
an
intention to sell
drugs.
those
Although
adopts
majority
this
I find
reasoning,
unpersuasive. Appellant
it
relies on
Pagan,
In physical addition to the by police seized arrested, appellant when the expert there was testimo- police a ny by officer that paraphernalia seized was possession cocaine, more consistent of with with intent to deliver, than possession mere for personal Expert use. opinion to testimony admissible an inference that possessed the controlled substance was with an intent Bagley, 43, deliver. 442 Pa.Super. 296 Harris, Commonwealth v. (1982). A.2d 287 3 Footnote 7, 407, (1976) 241 Pa.Super. 9, states succinctly proposition possession that of a small of amount drugs preclude finding will not a possession with deliver, as follows: Hill, 572, 346 In Commonwealth v. Pa.Super. for a (1975), our court affirmed conviction
A.2d 314 26, Sept. Act of drags in narcotic under the trafficking case, (35 780-4(q)). In that P.L. 1664 P.S. § § sale, actual and although was no evidence of an there appellant only half-spoons had fifteen although the our arrest, of his in his at the time heroin amount, this the other coupled that with court felt conviction. present, While sufficient for factors Hill act, since dealt a under the old with violation case the case between that and analogy repealed, bar us to conclude that at is sufficient for estab necessarily is not crucial amount involved possession with intent lishing an inference of deliver, In the present. other are proper if facts bar, expert supplied testimony case the detective’s other the inference. (Em facts sufficient added.) phasis Harris, supra, opinion in his a detective testified defendant, of heroin
the amount consisting of half indicated that it was not spoons, sixteen use, and for the personal purpose for his distributing it. case, officer, experienced
In the instant who was cases, appel- in the narcotics testified the cocaine at the time he was arrested had value lant's one small His of over hundred about $80.00. plastic bags packaging for cocaine was consistent used Fur- drugs rather than use. the distribution ther, drag frequently carry gun protection, dealers Wesson, carry since they had a Smith & appellant had over money. amounts of drugs large reflect- tally in cash he was arrested and sheets when $800 customers. The Commonwealth’s ing accounts for various purely circumstantial proof may burden sustained Vishneski, evidence. *17 (1989).
We
not
a determination
trier of fact
which is supported by
evidence,
merely because we
have
might
reached a different result
in the first instance.
The determination of the credibility of witnesses
appropriate weight
accorded
produced
trial
within the
province
sole
of the trier of fact.
Commonwealth Vazquez,
v.
86,
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of 24,
Argued Jan. 1989.
Filed March 1989. Reargument April Denied