Court Opinion

ID: 9945858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 17:11:23.943718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:16.417110
License: Public Domain

J-S02041-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  TARON SMALL                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   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

      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

                                     -2-
J-S02041-24

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.

                                      -3-
J-S02041-24

      At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of first-

degree 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.

                                      -4-
J-S02041-24

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

                                     -5-
J-S02041-24

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

                                     -6-