No. 2478 Philadelphia 1982, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division, at No. 800000101.
Gary Spohn Fronheiser, Assistant Public Defender, Boyertown, for appellant.
Charles M. Guthrie, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Reading, for Com., appellee.
Wickersham, Olszewski and Roberts, JJ.
[ 325 Pa. Super. Page 372]
Appellant was convicted, after a jury trial, of violating § 3742(a) of the Vehicle Code (Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injury),*fn1 in that he failed to stop his vehicle after being involved in an accident resulting in injury to a person and failed to give information and render aid to the victim. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial and/or arrest of judgment, contending that the verdict was contrary to the law, the evidence, and the weight of evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Appellant's motion was denied and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in Berks County Prison for two (2) to twelve
[ 325 Pa. Super. Page 373]
(12) months, and ordered to pay a fine, costs and restitution. Appellant then instituted this appeal.
Appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial by the Commonwealth was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In support of this allegation, appellant claims that the alleged victim suffered no immediate injuries as a consequence of the accident, and that any pain which the alleged victim suffered was due to a pre-existing physical condition.
The test for sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Tribble, 502 Pa. 619, 467 A.2d 1130 (1983); Commonwealth v. Bastone, 466 Pa. 548, 353 A.2d 827 (1976).
The question of credibility is left to the jury and the verdict will not be disturbed if the jury determines the evidence is worthy of belief. Commonwealth v. Smith, 502 Pa. 600, 467 A.2d 1120 (1983); Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (1976). Furthermore, the mere existence of a conflict in the evidence does not mean the trier of fact was required to resort to speculation. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 473 Pa. 62, 373 A.2d 1051 (1977).
The record in this case discloses the following facts:
On December 5, 1979, appellant was involved in an automobile accident with the alleged victim, Miguel Seda. Appellant then drove away without stopping his vehicle to provide the necessary information ...