Thomas v. State

The trial court's refusal to give the defendant's requested jury instruction on accident did not affect the outcome of the trial, as the jury's conclusion that the defendant acted with malice necessarily meant that it would have rejected any accident defense.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Dorville Thomas was convicted of malice murder in connection with the shooting death of Kalvin McGee and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Thomas now appeals his conviction and sentence on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the trial court wrongly refused his requested jury instructions, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no error, we affirm.1

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence adduced at trial established as follows. McGee was a self-described transsexual who advertised escort services under the name Meeya and met with clients at an apartment he shared with his roommate, Christian Alexander. Although McGee had long hair, breasts, and a soft feminine voice, McGee’s advertisements clearly indicated that he identified as transsexual. Around 11 p.m. on the night of the murder, Alexander was returning to the apartment and had a brief telephone conversation with McGee; McGee, who was at the apartment, indicated that a client was coming over. Alexander arrived a few minutes later, and, when he arrived, he observed that the apartment was set up as if McGee had a client there. Alexander also noticed that the front door was unlocked and that a door leading to McGee’s side of the apartment was open, which Alexander found strange. After getting to his room, Alexander sent a text message to McGee but received no response. Shortly thereafter, Alexander entered McGee’s room and discovered him dead on the floor next to the bed.

Thomas v. State

The trial court's refusal to give the defendant's requested jury instruction on accident did not affect the outcome of the trial, as the jury's conclusion that the defendant acted with malice necessarily meant that it would have rejected any accident defense.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report