## Facts

- Virginia Kurschinske was the manager of Spanky’s Tobacco World (Spanky’s) in Titusville, Pennsylvania, a retailer that sold Pennsylvania Lottery tickets.
- In 2017, the Pennsylvania Lottery sent an investigator to Spanky’s to investigate abnormally high scratch-off ticket sales.
- When the investigator arrived, Kurschinske identified herself as “Amanda,” and she signed the name “Amanda Hicks” on a verification form the investigator used to document review of lottery policies; “Amanda Hicks” was the name of another Spanky’s employee.
- During the same interaction, Kurschinske falsely denied that she had authority to activate scratch-off tickets and falsely denied access to Spanky’s lottery inventory.
- Kurschinske later told the investigator the truth about her authority and access and revealed her real name.
- The Commonwealth charged Kurschinske with forgery and unsworn falsification to authorities.
- At the jury trial, the investigator testified about the false name, the “Amanda Hicks” signature on the verification form, and the false statements about authority and inventory access. He also testified that after he learned Kurschinske’s identity, he gave her the verification form again and she signed her correct name without coercion.
- Kurschinske testified that she was rattled during the inspection and believed the investigator’s credentials were not real. She claimed she wrote “Amanda Hicks” because she thought she was writing a store contact name on nonofficial paper, and she disputed seeing and signing the verification form.
- The trial court granted a judgment of acquittal on the forgery charge. The jury convicted Kurschinske of unsworn falsification to authorities, and the trial court sentenced her to six months’ probation.
- Kurschinske filed a post-sentence motion challenging the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, and Kurschinske appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Kurschinske’s post-sentence motion claiming the jury’s verdict for unsworn falsification to authorities was against the weight of the evidence?

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the weight-of-the-evidence motion.
- The court deferred to the factfinder’s resolution of conflicting testimony, including the jury’s decision to credit the investigator’s account over Kurschinske’s explanation.
- Because the verdict did not shock the conscience or sense of justice, weight relief was not warranted.

## Legal Principles

- A weight-of-the-evidence claim challenges whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one’s sense of justice; it is not a substitute for a sufficiency claim.
- The trial court has broad discretion when ruling on a weight motion, and appellate review is limited to whether the trial court abused that discretion.
- The jury is the finder of fact and the judge of credibility; it may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony.
- Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities), the Commonwealth must prove a defendant knowingly made a false statement (including in writing) with intent to mislead a public servant acting in an official capacity; intent may be inferred from surrounding circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court affirmed Kurschinske’s unsworn-falsification conviction and probationary sentence because the investigator’s testimony and related circumstances supported the jury’s finding of knowing deception during an official lottery investigation, and the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding the verdict was not so contrary to the evidence as to require a new trial.


Commonwealth v. Kurschinske, 224 A.3d 810, No. 17 WDA 2019 (2019)