J-A08001-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEPHEN R. RANDALL

Appellant No. 473 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 3, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004208-2012

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

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 29, 2017

The Philadelphia Police Department charged Appellant, Stephen R. 

Randall, with assorted crimes arising from an attempted carjacking of 

Monica Kelly and Earl Stanton. The primary factual issue at Randall’s bench 

trial was Kelly and Stanton’s identification of Randall as one of the three 

males who accosted them. Despite significant evidence of suggestive taint 

by police procedures, the trial court found Kelly and Stanton’s in-court 

identification of Randall credible, and therefore found him guilty on all 

charges.

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08001-17

- 2 -

On appeal, Randall contends that the trial court erred in failing to 

grant him a new trial as the weight of the evidence at trial was against its 

verdict.

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact 

who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to 

determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court 

cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. 

Thus, we may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. 

Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim 

below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying 

question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial 

court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. 

Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (internal 

citations omitted). 

When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated 

on the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court’s 

decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is 

so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based 

thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not 

cognizable on appellate review. 

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal 

quotes and citations omitted).

A review of the trial transcript reveals the following testimony. Stanton 

testified that at approximately 8:00 p.m. on March 18, 2012, he was a 

passenger in a vehicle driven by Kelly. At the intersection of 15th Street and 

70th Avenue, three armed men approached the vehicle. One man 

approached Stanton on the passenger side of the vehicle; the other two 

menaced Kelly through the driver’s side window.
J-A08001-17

- 3 -

Neither Stanton or Kelly recognized any of the males. One of the 

males directed Kelly to disembark from the vehicle. However, another car 

approached the intersection and its headlights distracted the assailants, 

allowing Kelly to quickly drive away from the intersection. The incident 

lasted less than a minute.

Once safely away from the scene of the crime, Stanton called 911. He 

told the dispatcher that the assailants were “three black males ... I think one 

... guy had white sneakers [and] I think a blue sweat suit jacket on [and] I 

think blue jeans.” He could not provide a description of the other two 

assailants to the dispatcher.

The information Kelly provided to the dispatcher was, if anything, even

sparser. She informed the dispatcher that she could not describe the 

assailants’ clothing except that one of them had a hoodie on.

When police arrived to interview Stanton, he provided the following 

description:

Black male, 160 pounds approximately, brown skin, mustache, 

early 20s. He had a hoodie. His clothes were not as dark as the 

other males. He was closer to the vehicle. His clothes were not 

dark, but not bright that would stand out. ... [T]hey all had 

hoodies and hats on.

He could not describe the hats worn by the assailants, because the hoodies 

covered them.

Police drove Kelly and Stanton around the neighborhood in an effort to 

locate their assailants. This effort was unsuccessful, and Kelly and Stanton 
J-A08001-17

- 4 -

were driven to the police station. At the police station, officers received a 

report of a gunshot victim, Randall, at a local hospital claiming that he had 

been shot while being robbed at the intersection of 15th Street and 70th 

Avenue. Randall informed hospital personnel that he had driven himself to 

the hospital after being shot during a robbery.

Police quickly surmised that the two incidents were related. Kelly and 

Stanton were informed that the gunshot victim at the hospital was suspected 

to be one of their assailants, and they were driven to the hospital to make 

an identification. Both Stanton and Kelly positively identified Randall as one 

of their assailants.

Over a year later, after Randall had been charged, a line-up 

identification was held. Six men were in the lineup; Stanton immediately 

identified Randall.

Randall testified in his own defense. He stated that he lived at the 

intersection of 15th Street and 70th Avenue. He was sitting in his car texting 

when an assailant approached his passenger side window and demanded 

that he “give it up.” Randall drove away, but suffered a gunshot wound to 

his arm as the assailant fired at him. When Stanton and Kelly were brought 

to the hospital to identify him, his hat was lying next to him on the bed.

Randall contends that under these circumstances, Stanton’s and 

Kelly’s identifications were unreliable. He highlights: (a) the short amount of 

time the victims had to observe their assailants, (b) the sparse descriptions 
J-A08001-17

- 5 -

given by the victims to the police dispatcher, (c) the taint caused by the 

police informing the victims that Randall was a suspect before they saw him, 

and (d) the presence of his hat and boots in his hospital room when Stanton 

and Kelly first identified him. 

In rejecting these arguments, the trial court provided the following 

reasoning:

[T]his [c]ourt submits that it correctly concluded that the verdict 

does not shock the conscience. The complainants identified 

[Randall] shortly after the incident occurred as one of the three 

persons involved in the incident. They identified [Randall] 

immediately upon seeing him and Stanton again identified him at 

a lineup that occurred months after the incident happened. Both 

complainants were absolutely certain in the reliability of their 

identifications.

Support for the reliability of the identifications is found in the 

fact that both complainants placed defendant on the driver’s side 

of the car and did not identify any other person shown to them 

the night of the incident. They were also consistent in their 

testimony with respect to many of the other details of the crime. 

In addition, [Randall] turned away from both complainants when 

they were asked to identify him.

In addition, this [c]ourt did not find [Randall’s] testimony 

credible. According to [Randall,] despite being shot, he did not 

call police and instead drove himself to a hospital using a route 

that took longer than necessary. In this [c]ourt’s opinion, a 

person that had been shot during a robbery would not have 

acted as defendant did that evening. Instead, such a victim 

would have done what the complainants herein did and 

immediately contact[ed] the police.

Finally, while the police should not have advised the 

complainants that a possible suspect was at the hospital before 

transporting them there, this [c]ourt did not find that the police’s 

actions so tainted the complainants’ identifications such that the 

verdict shocks the conscience because the complainants: 1.) 

were certain in identifying [Randall]; 2.) were consistent in their 
J-A08001-17

- 6 -

recall of the incident; and 3.) identified [Randall] shortly after 

the incident occurred. Moreover, [Randall’s] testimony about his 

actions the night of the incident was preposterous. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/16, at 10-11 (citation omitted).

After reviewing the certified record, we cannot conclude that the 

reasoning quoted above constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion 

on this issue. The trial court acknowledges the weaknesses in the case 

presented by the Commonwealth, but provides cogent reasons for finding

Stanton’s and Kelly’s identification of Randall credible. As such, Randall’s 

sole issue on appeal merits no relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/29/2017