Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. David I. Mosher, No. 3 Miscellaneous Division, 1983.
Thomas A. Walrath, Jr., Walrath & Coolidge, for appellant.
James E. Carlson, District Attorney for Tioga County, appellee.
Judges Rogers and Barry and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 127]
David I. Mosher (appellant) appeals from a judgment of sentence to pay a fine of $300.00, plus costs, entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County after finding him guilty of hunting in Pennsylvania and killing an antlerless deer without a valid non-resident's hunting license, violations of Section 316(a) and 701 of the Game Law, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1225, as amended, 34 P.S. §§ 1311.316(a), 1311.701.
On December 15, 1982, a deputy game protector, acting on an anonymous tip, visited the appellant's apartment where he discovered a recently killed antlerless deer hanging in the yard. The game protector spoke with the appellant who admitted that he killed the deer in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, and produced a current Pennsylvania resident hunting license. The game protector, believing that the appellant's residence was located just north of the Pennsylvania-New York state line, thereupon charged him with hunting in Pennsylvania without a non-resident hunting license
[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 128]
and with possession of an unlawfully taken antlerless deer. The appellant was found guilty of these charges by the district justice and at the hearing de novo before the court of common pleas, the sole issue was that of whether the appellant's residence was located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or in the State of New York. The court of common pleas, as noted, concluded that the appellant's residence was indeed located in the State of New York and imposed fines totaling $300.00*fn1
The appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for violating Sections 316(a) and 701 of The Game Law.
[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 129]
To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, accept as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences upon which, if believed, the trial court could properly have based its verdict, and determine whether such evidence and inferences are sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Stockard, 489 Pa. 209, 413 A.2d 1088 (1980). "Moreover, it is the province of the trier of fact to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence ...