J-S02041-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TARON SMALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1593 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 1, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0001790-2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2024

Appellant Taron Small appeals the judgment of sentence entered by the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after Appellant was convicted 

of first-degree murder and multiple weapons offenses. Appellant claims the 

evidence was insufficient to support his convictions as the prosecution did not 

prove he was the perpetrator of the shooting at issue.

On August 22, 2018, Appellant was charged with murder, criminal 

conspiracy, possession of an instrument of crime (PIC), firearms not to be 

carried without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, and 

possession of firearms by a minor in connection with the August 13, 2018 

shooting death of eighteen-year-old Kristian Marche (“the victim”).

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S02041-24

- 2 -

After Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, he proceeded to a bench 

trial which was held on February 9, 2023. The parties stipulated that on the 

evening of August 13, 2018, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the victim was shot

in the rear alley of 1800 E. Pastorious Street in Philadelphia. Notes of 

Testimony (N.T.), 2/9/23, at 11, 19. 

The victim was rushed to Albert Einstein Medical Center, where he later 

died the following day. N.T. at 10. After an autopsy, the medical examiner 

determined the victim’s cause of death was the gunshot wound he sustained 

to the back of the head. N.T. at 10. As such, the medical examiner ruled the 

manner of the victim’s death to be homicide. N.T. at 10.

Officers recovered one 9 mm fired cartridge casing on the street after a 

thorough search of the crime scene. N.T. at 11. Philadelphia Police Detective 

Thorsten Lucke, the prosecution’s expert in video recovery and analysis, 

processed and analyzed footage that officers obtained from four locations near 

the crime scene. N.T. at 16-17. The footage showed three individuals walking

in the alley at the time of the shooting. N.T. at 20-24. Camera footage showed

a third individual “manipulating ... some dark object with both hands that he 

then sticks in his front waistband.” N.T. at 21. The footage records the same 

individual walking up behind the victim, pulling a gun from his waistband, and 

shooting the unsuspecting victim in the back of the head. N.T. at 16-24.

The prosecution also offered the testimony of B.V., who admitted that 

he was with Appellant on Pastorius Street on the night of the shooting. N.T.

at 32. B.V. indicated that he was fifteen at the time of the shooting and had 
J-S02041-24

- 3 -

grown up with the victim. N.T. at 28. B.V. recalled that on the night of the 

murder, he had an argument with the victim as the victim had accused B.V. 

of stealing his firearm. N.T. at 30. B.V. and the victim arranged to settle the 

dispute with a fistfight. N.T. at 32, 34-37. B.V. indicated that Appellant gave 

him a “pep talk” and told him not to lose the fight. N.T. at 37. 

B.V. testified that he and the victim subsequently walked down the 

street with Appellant following behind them. N.T. at 37-40. B.V. claimed that 

Appellant left him with the victim as Appellant had to go urinate. N.T. at 40.

When B.V. and the victim reached the alley, B.V. heard a gunshot and ran 

from the scene without seeing who fired the shot. N.T. at 41-42. B.V. denied 

shooting the victim. N.T. at 42. In addition, B.V. did not believe that Appellant 

was in possession of a firearm that evening. N.T. at 37.

When the prosecution presented the surveillance video footage to B.V., 

B.V. claimed he had never before seen that footage. N.T. at 50-51. While B.V. 

recognized the location of the footage as Pastorius Street, B.V. claimed he 

could not recognize anyone in the videos. N.T. at 50-53.

The parties stipulated that Appellant was sixteen years old at the time 

of the shooting, was ineligible to obtain a license to possess a firearm as a 

minor, and did not possess a valid license to carry a firearm in Pennsylvania

at the time of the shooting. N.T. at 12. The defense presented a character 

witness who testified that Appellant had a reputation for being peaceful and 

non-violent. N.T. at 73-74.
J-S02041-24

- 4 -

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of firstdegree murder, PIC, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying 

firearms in public in Philadelphia, and possession of firearms by a minor. The

trial court found Appellant was not guilty on the conspiracy charge. On June 

1, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of forty-five 

years’ to life imprisonment.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and complied with the trial 

court’s direction to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Appellant raises the following issue for our review on appeal:

Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict Appellant of all 

charges where the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Appellant was identified by any witness(es) 

along with any other direct or circumstantial evidence at trial was 

the same person on the video who killed the decedent [sic]?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we are guided by the following 

standard of review:

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presents a question 

of law and is subject to plenary review under a de novo standard. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must 

determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, were sufficient to prove every 

element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [T]he facts 

and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not 

preclude every possibility of innocence. The Commonwealth may 

sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond 

a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.
J-S02041-24

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Papp, 305 A.3d 62, 81 (Pa.Super. 2023) (citation 

omitted).

Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of the shooting that caused the 

victim’s death. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the prosecution’s witness, 

B.V., did not see who shot the victim and testified that Appellant had walked 

away from the scene before the shooting occurred. Further, Appellant 

emphasizes that video surveillance footage does not allow for Appellant to be 

identified as the shooter.

Nevertheless, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to allow the 

trial court, as factfinder, to determine Appellant was in fact the shooter. B.V. 

admitted that he and Appellant were with the victim at the crime scene just 

moments before the shooting occurred. B.V. admitted he had an argument 

with the victim right before the shooting and had agreed to fight the victim.

Appellant had insisted B.V. to win the fight. While B.V. indicated he thought 

Appellant walked away from the scene to urinate, the victim was shot in the 

back of the head just moments later. 

The video surveillance footage corroborates B.V.’s account and shows 

there were only three individuals walking in the alley when the victim was 

shot. The recording shows the third individual pull back from the other two 

men to cock a gun before catching up to the victim and shooting him in the 

back of the head. Although B.V. did not see who shot the victim, circumstantial 

evidence shows that Appellant was the only other individual in the alley 
J-S02041-24

- 6 -

standing behind the victim and in a position to shoot the victim in the back of 

the head.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly 

found that there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of first-degree 

murder, PIC, and the related firearms offenses.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 2/28/2024