Appeal from Judgment of Sentence November 27, 1985 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal No. 220983. Appeal from Judgment of Sentence November 27, 1985 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal No. 220883.
Samuel C. Stretton, West Chester, for appellants.
Joseph W. Carroll, III, Deputy District Attorney, West Chester, for Com., appellee.
Cavanaugh, Olszewski and Montemuro, JJ.
[ 364 Pa. Super. Page 480]
Appellants appeal from the judgments of sentence entered after a jury found them guilty of involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, and endangering the welfare of a child.*fn1 On this appeal, appellants argue: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support
[ 364 Pa. Super. Page 481]
the verdict; and (2) that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to present testimony on the battered child syndrome and by not charging the jury that such testimony should be received with great care and caution.*fn2 For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgments of sentence.
With regard to the first issue, we note that the well-established standard for reviewing a sufficiency claim was stated recently by our Supreme Court as:
(W)hether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence . . . Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire trial record must be evaluated and all evidence
[ 364 Pa. Super. Page 482]
actually received must be considered . . . Finally, the trier of fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Griscavage, 512 Pa. 540, 543, 517 A.2d 1256, 1257 (1986) (quoting Commonwealth v. Harper, 485 Pa. 572, 576-577, 403 A.2d 536, 538-539 (1979) (citations omitted)). After thoroughly examining the evidence presented, and taking from it all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth and resolving all conflicting evidence in favor of the Commonwealth, we find that appellants' claim of insufficient evidence must fail. The trial court's opinion at 3-7 adequately addresses this issue. We, consequently, will address only appellants' second issue in this opinion.
Before addressing the legal issue raised in this case, however, a recital of the facts is necessary. The trial court ...