Commonwealth v. Kerrigan

J. A32034/06because the evidence was insufficient to establish that any penetrationoccurred in Pennsylvania. Brief for Appellant at 23. Pursuant to statute,the convictions that require penile penetration are Rape of a Child, Rape of aChild (Serious Bodily Injury), Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, andInvoluntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Serious Bodily Injury). 7 In reviewing a sufficiency claim, we must view all the evidence in thelight most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner todetermine if the fact-finder could have found each element of the crimeproven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Hughes, 555A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 1989).We may not weigh the evidence, nor“substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.” Commonwealth v.Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064, 1069 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances establishedby the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility ofinnocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may beresolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak andinconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may bedrawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealthmay sustain its burden of proving every element of the crimebeyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantialevidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire recordmust be evaluated and all evidence actually received must beconsidered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon thecredibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citationomitted).-6-