dissent from the majority's reversal of Appellant's conviction commit murder the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove Appellant committed homicide the assistance of unidentified co-conspirator.

In reviewing sufficiency claims, appellate courts are view record the light most favorable winner, thereby giving the Commonwealth the benefit of all inferences can reasonably drawn from the evidence. 886-87 (citation omitted). This Court has emphasized while the Commonwealth the burden of proving the defendant committed ^[*] Former Justice specially assigned the Superior Court.

charged offense and each material element of charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the Commonwealth is neither to prove the defendant's guilt with absolute certainty nor obliged to "preclude every possibility of innocence." Id; Commonwealth v. Thompson, 742, 2014).

In fact, it well -established the prosecution may meet its burden of proving the defendant's basis wholly circumstantial evidence: [t]he

Accordingly, fact evidence establishing defendant's participation crime circumstantial does not preclude conviction where the evidence coupled with the therefrom overcomes reasonable inferences drawn the presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for of the finder; thus, so long evidence adduced, accepted light most favorable Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of defendant's crimes beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant's convictions will be upheld. at (citation omitted).

To reiterate, this Court held order "[t]o sustain conviction for criminal conspiracy, the Commonwealth must establish the defendant: 1) entered into an agreement or an unlawful act with another person or persons; shared criminal intent; and 3) overt act was done furtherance conspiracy." Rogal, (Pa. Super.

In finding there insufficient convict Appellant commit murder, Majority improperly views the evidence the light most favorable the defense. Although the concludes that the jury's verdict was "mere conjecture" as Appellant's co- conspirators were never specifically identified, the Majority ignores well - established precedent which acknowledges that "[g]iven the surreptitious nature of conspiracy, the existence of formal agreement often proven circumstantially, [by reviewing] the relations, conduct, or circumstances of the parties." Jacobs, Pa. 664, 678, 39 977, (2012).

Viewing the evidence the light most favorable the Commonwealth as winner, there to allow the that was guilty of conspiring the murder. The prosecution presented evidence that supports inference that was stalking the victim by casing vehicle driven an associate. Before the shooting, the victim's friend, Hassan Polk, observed red car circling block four times; Polk testified that several people were car, including Appellant. Shortly after Polk noticed car's suspicious movements, he nearby corner fire. was particularly perceptive of his surroundings he admitted was having problems with other individuals neighborhood. The that driver car numerous times short period weakens the proposition merely present at without knowledge planned to harm the victim.

- 3 -

The jury free believe the prosecution's theory of car agreed to committing the homicide repeatedly driving victims to assess and dropping Appellant off near allow him to shoot the victims. Shortly after noticed repeatedly passing location vehicle, nearby corner fire. Circumstantial the assistance of cohort is evidence of criminal conspiracy. Lambert,

Setting aside jury serious matter. The erred substituting judgment factfinder as its own Commonwealth presented evidence to allow the conspired with another committing murder. Therefore, dissent.