J-S04016-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAMAUR BROWN : : Appellant : No. 1073 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 20, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-0001486-2023
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 4, 2025
Appellant, Ramaur Brown, seeks review of the judgment of sentence
entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court). In 2024,
Appellant was found guilty after a jury trial of several firearm-related offenses.
He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven to 15 years. In his
post-sentence motion, he contended that the evidence of guilt was insufficient
because the convictions hinged on the uncorroborated testimony of a single
witness who had been impeached. The trial court denied the post-sentence
motion, and on appeal, Appellant reiterates his contention that the evidence
presented at trial was legally insufficient. For the reasons below, we affirm.
On November 26, 2022, police officers were dispatched to the scene of
a reported shooting at a convenience store in Lehigh County. The clerk
working at the convenience store at the time, Erick Owuor, told the officers
that a man wearing a face mask (later identified as Appellant) had bought J-S04016-25
some items in the store, and gotten into an argument with another customer
while checking out at the register. Moments later, Owuor saw the masked
man leave the store and wait in the parking lot for the other customer to come
outside. The statement Owuor gave to police included a description of the
masked man as appearing to be Black, with a thin build, and having on a blue
coat.
As the second customer left the store, he and Appellant began fighting.
During the scuffle, Owuor saw Appellant draw a firearm from his pocket and
open fire a single time in the direction of the other man. Owuor’s manager, a
woman named “Raj,” contacted police to report the incident. Police were able
to obtain from the manager video footage from the store’s surveillance camera
which corroborated Owuor’s identification; they also retrieved a spent shell
casing in the same area where the gun had been discharged, further
establishing that the reported crime had in fact occurred.
The day after police received the surveillance video, the store manager
called the police to report that she recognized the shooter in the video as
Appellant, and that he was in the store at the time of her call. The police
responded, stopped Appellant as he was walking on the street near the store,
and took a photo of him.
A few weeks after the incident, police showed the clerk, Owuor, a line-
up which included the photo they had taken of Appellant. Owuor was able to
identify Appellant as the man he had seen on the night in question. Shortly
thereafter, Appellant was charged with persons not to possess firearms (18
-2- J-S04016-25
Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(A)(1)); persons not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
6105(A)(1)); and firearms not to be carried without a license (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
6106(A)(1)).
At the jury trial, Owuor took the stand and elaborated on why he had
identified Appellant as the person who he had encountered on the night in
question, despite that the shooter had been wearing a mask during the
incident. According to Owuor, Appellant had been a regular customer at the
convenience store for the four years in which Owuor worked there, making
him familiar with Appellant’s voice, and clothing. Owuor testified that
Appellant regularly wore the same coat that the shooter had worn; Owuor
stated further that he recognized Appellant’s voice when he briefly spoke to
him at the cash register.
The defense attempted to impeach Owuor’s credibility as an eyewitness
by pointing out that the responding officers did not recall Owuor telling them
he had recognized Appellant as a regular customer. Further, the defense
questioned Owuor about whether he had told police that he only heard a
gunshot, and did not see it through the glass doors of the convenience store.
When questioned about whether he told police that Appellant had regularly
worn a blue jacket into the store, Owuor responded that he had not done so
because he had recognized Appellant in part due to the black jacket he had
worn “almost every night.” N.T. Trial, 1/22/2024, at 71.
It was suggested by the defense that Owuor’s identification of Appellant
was tainted by the earlier identification of Owuor’s manager, Raj, as Owuor
-3- J-S04016-25
had been unable to recognize him as a regular customer until after he had
spoken to his manager about the case. The defense argued that Owuor’s
testimony should be discounted, and Appellant found innocent, because the
store manager had not been called as a witness at trial, and there was no
evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was the
person who committed the subject firearm offenses.
At the conclusion of the trial, Appellant was found guilty as charged, and
he was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven to 15 years. Appellant
filed post-sentence motions, which were denied, and Appellant timely
appealed. The trial court then issued an opinion in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a), giving the reasons why the judgment of sentence should be upheld.
See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 6/17/2024, at 3-5. In his brief, Appellant’s
sole contention is that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the credibility of the
Commonwealth’s only eyewitness was completely impeached. See
Appellant’s Brief, at 8-17.
“A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.”
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). Evidence of an
offense is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict if every element of the
offense may establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.
“When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the
benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” Id.
-4- J-S04016-25
“Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact
finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of
law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 337 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa. Super. 2013)).
“Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact
finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a
defendant’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s convictions will
be upheld.” Sebolka, 205 A.3d at 337 (quoting Franklin, 69 A.3d at 722-
23).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S04016-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAMAUR BROWN : : Appellant : No. 1073 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 20, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-0001486-2023
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 4, 2025
Appellant, Ramaur Brown, seeks review of the judgment of sentence
entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court). In 2024,
Appellant was found guilty after a jury trial of several firearm-related offenses.
He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven to 15 years. In his
post-sentence motion, he contended that the evidence of guilt was insufficient
because the convictions hinged on the uncorroborated testimony of a single
witness who had been impeached. The trial court denied the post-sentence
motion, and on appeal, Appellant reiterates his contention that the evidence
presented at trial was legally insufficient. For the reasons below, we affirm.
On November 26, 2022, police officers were dispatched to the scene of
a reported shooting at a convenience store in Lehigh County. The clerk
working at the convenience store at the time, Erick Owuor, told the officers
that a man wearing a face mask (later identified as Appellant) had bought J-S04016-25
some items in the store, and gotten into an argument with another customer
while checking out at the register. Moments later, Owuor saw the masked
man leave the store and wait in the parking lot for the other customer to come
outside. The statement Owuor gave to police included a description of the
masked man as appearing to be Black, with a thin build, and having on a blue
coat.
As the second customer left the store, he and Appellant began fighting.
During the scuffle, Owuor saw Appellant draw a firearm from his pocket and
open fire a single time in the direction of the other man. Owuor’s manager, a
woman named “Raj,” contacted police to report the incident. Police were able
to obtain from the manager video footage from the store’s surveillance camera
which corroborated Owuor’s identification; they also retrieved a spent shell
casing in the same area where the gun had been discharged, further
establishing that the reported crime had in fact occurred.
The day after police received the surveillance video, the store manager
called the police to report that she recognized the shooter in the video as
Appellant, and that he was in the store at the time of her call. The police
responded, stopped Appellant as he was walking on the street near the store,
and took a photo of him.
A few weeks after the incident, police showed the clerk, Owuor, a line-
up which included the photo they had taken of Appellant. Owuor was able to
identify Appellant as the man he had seen on the night in question. Shortly
thereafter, Appellant was charged with persons not to possess firearms (18
-2- J-S04016-25
Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(A)(1)); persons not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
6105(A)(1)); and firearms not to be carried without a license (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
6106(A)(1)).
At the jury trial, Owuor took the stand and elaborated on why he had
identified Appellant as the person who he had encountered on the night in
question, despite that the shooter had been wearing a mask during the
incident. According to Owuor, Appellant had been a regular customer at the
convenience store for the four years in which Owuor worked there, making
him familiar with Appellant’s voice, and clothing. Owuor testified that
Appellant regularly wore the same coat that the shooter had worn; Owuor
stated further that he recognized Appellant’s voice when he briefly spoke to
him at the cash register.
The defense attempted to impeach Owuor’s credibility as an eyewitness
by pointing out that the responding officers did not recall Owuor telling them
he had recognized Appellant as a regular customer. Further, the defense
questioned Owuor about whether he had told police that he only heard a
gunshot, and did not see it through the glass doors of the convenience store.
When questioned about whether he told police that Appellant had regularly
worn a blue jacket into the store, Owuor responded that he had not done so
because he had recognized Appellant in part due to the black jacket he had
worn “almost every night.” N.T. Trial, 1/22/2024, at 71.
It was suggested by the defense that Owuor’s identification of Appellant
was tainted by the earlier identification of Owuor’s manager, Raj, as Owuor
-3- J-S04016-25
had been unable to recognize him as a regular customer until after he had
spoken to his manager about the case. The defense argued that Owuor’s
testimony should be discounted, and Appellant found innocent, because the
store manager had not been called as a witness at trial, and there was no
evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was the
person who committed the subject firearm offenses.
At the conclusion of the trial, Appellant was found guilty as charged, and
he was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven to 15 years. Appellant
filed post-sentence motions, which were denied, and Appellant timely
appealed. The trial court then issued an opinion in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a), giving the reasons why the judgment of sentence should be upheld.
See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 6/17/2024, at 3-5. In his brief, Appellant’s
sole contention is that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the credibility of the
Commonwealth’s only eyewitness was completely impeached. See
Appellant’s Brief, at 8-17.
“A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.”
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). Evidence of an
offense is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict if every element of the
offense may establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.
“When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the
benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” Id.
-4- J-S04016-25
“Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact
finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of
law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 337 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa. Super. 2013)).
“Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact
finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a
defendant’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s convictions will
be upheld.” Sebolka, 205 A.3d at 337 (quoting Franklin, 69 A.3d at 722-
23). It is the role of the trier of fact to pass upon the weight and credibility
of a witness’s testimony, and the trier of fact “is free to believe all, part, or
none of the evidence.” Sebolka, 205 A.3d at 337 (quoting Commonwealth
v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602, 607 (Pa. 2011)).
Here, the eyewitness, Owuor, identified Appellant as the perpetrator of
the incident which took place on November 26, 2022. About three weeks after
that date, Owuor selected Appellant out of a photo line-up. Later, at
Appellant’s trial, Owuor testified that he had recognized Appellant as a regular
customer at the convenience store, and that he was sure Appellant was the
person who he encountered on the night of the incident. Owuor explained
that he was able to identify Appellant through his mask because he was
familiar with Appellant’s voice, race, build, and clothing.
-5- J-S04016-25
There were some inconsistencies between Owuor’s testimony and his
statements to police. For example, at trial, Owuor testified that he recognized
Appellant in part because he frequently wore a black jacket every day, the
same jacket worn by the shooter on the night in question. But the police had
recorded Owuor as describing the shooter’s jacket as being blue. Further,
Owuor had not initially told police that he recognized Appellant as being a
regular store customer on the night he first spoke to the responding officers;
he only told police he knew Appellant after Owuor’s manager saw Appellant in
the store and reported his presence there.
The jury heard Owuor’s testimony and had the opportunity to observe
his demeanor first-hand. The defense also had the chance to impeach Owour
on cross-examination and argue to the jury that his testimony should not be
believed due to the above-discussed inconsistencies between his testimony
and his account given to police on the night of the shooting.
The jury nevertheless accepted the prosecution’s identification evidence
as credible, and Appellant was found guilty. Although Appellant asserts that
the identification of Owuor was unreliable, it was for the jury to determine his
credibility and decide what weight, if any, to give to that evidence. On review,
the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, and all inferences must be drawn in that party’s favor. We
cannot substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder.
Owuor’s testimony, if found credible, was clearly sufficient to establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was the person who discharged a
-6- J-S04016-25
weapon outside of Owuor’s convenience store. It was for the jury to decide
whether any apparent inconsistencies between his testimony and his
statements to police were a compelling enough reason to give it reasonable
doubt about Appellant’s guilt. In light of all the circumstances in the case, a
reasonable inference may be drawn that Owuor was a credible witness, and
we see nothing in the record which would preclude a finding of Appellant’s
guilt as a matter of law. Thus, since the identification testimony could
establish Appellant’s identity as the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt, and
we find no merit in his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the order
on review must be upheld.1
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins this memorandum.
Judge Olson concurs in the result.
Date: 4/4/2025
____________________________________________
1 Appellants’ sufficiency claim only relates to the identity element of each subject offense. None of the other elements of the offenses are being challenged here.
-7-