J-S19011-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RASHEED GEY A/K/A/ RASHEED GUY

Appellant No. 1341 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered August 14, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0005679-2012

BEFORE: STABILE, JENKINS, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 20, 2015

Rasheed Gey, a/k/a Rasheed Guy, appeals nunc pro tunc from the 

judgment of sentence entered for his conviction of first-degree murder. On 

appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and a trial court ruling 

that permitted a witness to testify even though she violated a witness 

sequestration order. We affirm.

On the afternoon of February 6, 2012, Vertrice Robinson and Dennis 

Gore were walking home from a corner store located at 55th and Lansdowne 

Streets in Philadelphia.1 As they walked west on Hunter Street, Appellant, 

clad in a grey hooded sweatshirt and jeans, approached them. He walked 

____________________________________________

1 This factual summary is taken from the trial court’s June 23, 2014 opinion 

and the notes of testimony of trial.
J-S19011-15

- 2 -

up until he was face-to-face with Gore, drew a silver firearm, and shot Gore 

multiple times in the chest. Gore fell to the ground. Appellant stood over 

Gore and fired several more rounds into his body. Robinson took cover 

behind a parked car, and Appellant fled west on Hunter Street, toward 

Allison Street.

Tanya Brown heard the gunshots from inside her home, and ran 

outside. Appellant, whom Brown had known for about a year, ran by 

brandishing a firearm. She ran to where Gore’s body lay with Robinson next 

to him. Brown, an Army nurse, provided what assistance she could until 

paramedics arrived.

Willie Wyche was standing on the corner of Allison and Lansdowne 

Streets. He heard four or five gunshots, and saw a man running toward 

him. The man had a large handgun in the pocket pouch of his sweatshirt. 

He pulled the hood over his head as he ran past Wyche, down the street to 

55th Street, and then to Girard Avenue. Wyche had known Appellant and 

his family for years, and he later identified the man as Appellant from a 

photo lineup. 

Dana Burke, alias Linette Flowers, was walking on Hunter Street. She 

saw Appellant, Robinson, and Gore on the opposite sidewalk. Burke/Flowers 

saw Appellant shoot Gore twice, stand over his body, and shoot the body 

three more times. After Appellant fled, Burke/Flowers called 911. She later 

identified Appellant, from whom she bought marijuana, as the shooter.
J-S19011-15

- 3 -

Police and medical personnel arrived on the scene. Medical personnel 

transported Gore to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, where he 

was pronounced dead. According to the autopsy, three bullets struck Gore 

in the chest, one in his arm, and one in his hip. Two of the gunshot wounds 

were “shored wounds,” meaning that they were consistent with a person 

being shot while lying on the ground. The medical examiner’s office 

determined Gore’s cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds, and the 

manner of death was homicide. 

Robinson, Wyche, Burke, and Brown independently identified Appellant 

from police photo arrays. Police officers arrested Appellant, and charged 

him with murder, two violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, possessing an 

instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person.2

On August 14, 2013, after a two-day non-jury trial, the trial court 

convicted Appellant of all counts, the murder conviction being first-degree 

murder. The trial court immediately imposed a mandatory sentence of life 

without parole for first-degree murder and no further penalty for the other 

convictions. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or an appeal. 

Current counsel was appointed, and the Commonwealth agreed to 

reinstatement of Appellant’s appellate rights. This appeal nunc pro tunc

followed.

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907, and 2705, respectively. 
J-S19011-15

- 4 -

Appellant raises two issues for our review:

A. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law?

B. Did the trial court err when it permitted a witness to testify 

after she had broken sequestration and heard the testimony 

of another fact witness?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (all-caps removed).

First, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 

his first-degree murder conviction. Regarding the sufficiency of the 

evidence, “our standard of review is de novo, however, our scope of review 

is limited to considering the evidence of record, and all reasonable 

inferences arising therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as the verdict winner.” Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 

A.3d 416, 420-21 (Pa. 2014). 

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine 

whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable 

inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was 

sufficient to enable the fact finder to conclude that the 

Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense 

beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth may sustain 

this burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 107 A.3d 52, 66 (Pa. 2014) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted).

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice 

aforethought. Commonwealth v. Duffy, 548 A.2d 1178, 1182 (Pa. 1988). 

First-degree murder is murder committed with the specific intent to kill. 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a); Johnson, 107 A.3d at 66. A killing is intentional if 
J-S19011-15

- 5 -

perpetrated by “means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of 

willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(d). The 

Commonwealth can establish specific intent to kill through circumstantial 

evidence, “such as the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s 

body.” Johnson, 107 A.3d at 66 (quotation omitted). 

Appellant shot Gore multiple times in the chest at close range, 

resulting in Gore’s death. The Commonwealth’s fact witnesses identified 

Appellant as the shooter in written statements and they chose Appellant 

from photo arrays. Though some of the witnesses equivocated while 

testifying at trial, we must accept as true their identification of Appellant as 

the shooter. Appellant does not contest the physical evidence tending to 

show Gore’s manner of death was intentional murder. We hold the 

evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, is sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for the firstdegree murder of Gore. 

We reject Appellant’s argument to the contrary. Appellant states, “this 

case is another in a long string of cases where witnesses ‘go south’ and their 

prior statements to police are admitted as substantive evidence.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 17. A witness who “goes south” initially inculpates a 

defendant, but then recants previous statements or refuses outright to 

testify at trial. Vertrice Robinson and Willie Wyche disavowed their prior 

signed written statements recorded by police. On cross-examination, 

Vertrice Robinson claimed that police officers pressured her into choosing 
J-S19011-15

- 6 -

Appellant’s picture from the photo array. N.T. Trial, 8/13/13, at 70-72, 86-

87. On direct examination, Willie Wyche renounced his prior statement 

identifying Appellant and instead testified that Appellant “didn’t do it.” Id.

at 136. 

Appellant concedes, however, that the witnesses’ prior statements to 

police identifying Appellant as the shooter are admissible for their 

substantive truth under the Rules of Evidence. See Pa.R.E. 803.1(1)(B) 

(providing that a prior, inconsistent, written statement of a testifying witness 

is admissible if the witnesses signed and adopted the statement); 

Commonwealth v. Brady, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa. 1986) (seminal case now 

codified by Rule 803.1). Both Robinson and Wyche gave statements, which 

police recorded and which Robinson and Wyche adopted by initialing or 

signing. 

It is on this point that Appellant’s argument fails. In a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we must accept as true all evidence in a light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Johnson, 107 A.3d at 66. 

Therefore, regarding witnesses’ inconsistent statements, we must accept as 

true the statements that inculpate Appellant. Appellant’s attacks on 

inconsistencies in the testimony concern the weight of the evidence. As 

Appellant recognizes, trial counsel did not preserve a challenge to the weight 

of the evidence in the trial court. See Appellant’s Brief at 18. Therefore, we 

cannot address this issue on appeal.
J-S19011-15

- 7 -

Second, Appellant argues the trial court erred in permitting Tanya 

Brown to testify after she violated the trial court’s sequestration order. 

Appellant notes that Brown’s compelling testimony tracked that of other 

Commonwealth witnesses. Appellant notes further that Brown received 

threats from an unknown source and was relocated by the Commonwealth 

prior to trial. The trial court allowed Appellant to question Brown regarding 

the violation of the sequestration order. Afterward, it denied Appellant’s 

request to preclude Brown from testifying.

A trial court has discretion to order witnesses sequestered so they 

cannot learn of other witnesses’ testimony. See Pa.R.E. 615. The trial court 

also has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration 

order. See Pa.R.E. 615 Comment (citing Commonwealth v. Smith, 346 

A.2d 757, 760 (Pa. 1975)). Possible remedies include a mistrial, precluding 

the offending witness from testifying, or instructing the jury. Id. (citing 

Commonwealth v. Scott, 436 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. 1981)). We review the 

trial court’s decision to hear Brown’s testimony for an abuse of discretion. 

See Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 615 A.2d 350 (Pa. Super. 1992)). An 

abuse of discretion “is not merely an error in judgment. Rather, it involves 

bias, partiality, prejudice, ill-will, manifest unreasonableness or a 

misapplication of the law. By contrast, a proper exercise of discretion 

conforms to the law and is based on the facts of record.” Commonwealth 

v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Street, 69 A.3d 628, 633 (Pa. Super. 2013)).
J-S19011-15

- 8 -

In deciding whether to allow a witness who violates a 

sequestration order to testify, the trial court should consider (1) 

the seriousness of the violation, (2) its impact on the testimony 

of the witness, the probable impact on the outcome of the trial, 

(3) whether the witness intentionally disobeyed the order, and 

(4) whether the party calling the witness procured the 

disobedience.

Schwartz, 615 A.2d at 357 (internal citations omitted) (numbering added).

Here, the trial court determined that Brown was present only for some 

of Burke/Flowers’ testimony. Importantly, it found she did not intentionally 

violate the sequestration order. Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 6/23/14, 

at 12. Having never been a witness before, Brown wandered into the 

courtroom of her own volition and unescorted by any police officer or 

representative from the district attorney. Id. Furthermore, the prosecutor 

did not know Brown entered the courtroom, i.e., the Commonwealth did not 

procure the violation. Id. On these facts, the trial court decided to allow 

Brown’s testimony. The record reflects the trial court’s thoughtful and 

careful consideration of the evidence pertaining to the violation of its 

sequestration order. The record does not show the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying Appellant’s request. We also note that Appellant was 

tried by the court—not by a jury. Therefore, we may presume that the trial 

court, sitting as fact-finder, gave due weight to Brown’s testimony in light of 

her unintentional violation of the sequestration order. See Commonwealth 

v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 788 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“[A] a trial court, acting as 

the finder of fact, is presumed to know the law, ignore prejudicial 
J-S19011-15

- 9 -

statements, and disregard inadmissible evidence.”). We reject Appellant’s 

second assignment of error. 

In sum, Appellant’s issues raised on appeal do not entitle him to relief. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/20/2015