and is governed by the credible facts which, in the judgment of the district attorney, can be established beyond a reasonable doubt at trial and are consistent with the policies of that office, including relevant standards applicable to the initiation of charges. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8931, Indictment and information, (d) Duties of prosecuting attorneys; see also ABA Standard for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function Standards, 3-3.9 Discretion in the Charging Decision. It is axiomatic that neither the trial court nor an appellate court may interfere with this function of the prosecution provided the appellant has not established fraud, prejudice or bias in the district attorney’s election of the individual charges. See Commonwealth v. Larsen, 452 Pa.Super. 508, 682 A.2d 783 (1996) (<HOLDING>); cf. In re Private Complaint of Petitioner
holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court holding the district attorney is vested with the sole discretion as to what crimes will be charged and that discretion will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion