testimony at trial. Dr. Karl Williams, the Commonwealth’s relation-back expert, based his calculations on the 0.106% BAC result taken at 5:50 a.m. (N.T. Trial, February 11, 2002, at 491-492). Dr. Williams determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Appellant’s BAC at 2:11 a.m., the time of the accident, would have been 0.130%. Id. at 493. Thus, Appellant’s BAC had been over the legal limit of .10% at the time of the accident. While Appellant’s expert, Dr. Frederick Fochtman, attempted to east doubt on the findings and methods used by Dr. Williams, the jury resolved this conflicting testimony in favor of Dr. Williams. Therefore, Appellant’s argument that the relation back evidence was unreliable is without merit. See Commonwealth v. Gillen, 798 A.2d 225 (Pa.Super.2002) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the fact that the Allegheny
holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder  in this instance the trial court citation omitted holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding mere conflict in testimony does not render evidence insufficient to support verdict because it is with province of fact finder to determine weight to be given to testimony and to believe all part or none of evidence holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict