Taylor v. State

A co-defendant's testimony linking the two appellants to the crimes was sufficiently corroborated as to one appellant but was not sufficiently corroborated as to the other appellant, and his conviction was therefore reversed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a joint trial, Roderick Taylor1 and Abdul Bessent2 were found guilty for the felony murder of Michael Key and Phyllis Frazier, the aggravated assault of Roney Wilson and Meagan Molix, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and conspiracy to possess cocaine. Both defendants appeal, contending, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient because the testimony of a co-defendant linking them to the crimes was not sufficiently corroborated. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Taylor’s convictions, but we must reverse the judgment in Bessent’s case.

1. In the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that Robert Brown, a co-defendant of Bessent and Taylor, testified that, during the day on December 21, 2008, Brown and Taylor were playing football in Jacksonville, Florida. At some point, Taylor told Brown that Bessent “needed to get something up in Georgia.” Brown understood this to be a trip to purchase drugs, and Brown agreed to drive Taylor, Bessent, and Joseph Stuckey from Florida to Kingsland, Georgia. According to Brown, Bessent used Stuckey’s cell phone to make calls to Michael Key, the dealer, and told Brown, who was driving the vehicle, how to get to Key’s apartment. Phone records later obtained by police proved that phone calls were made from Stuckey’s cell phone to Key’s cell phone at 5:54 p.m., 6:16 p.m., and 6:32 p.m. A call was also made from Key’s cell phone to Stuckey’s cell phone at 6:37 p.m., and one last call from Stuckey’s cell phone to Key’s cell phone at 6:39 p.m., shortly before the shootings in Key’s apartment.

Taylor v. State

A co-defendant's testimony linking the two appellants to the crimes was sufficiently corroborated as to one appellant but was not sufficiently corroborated as to the other appellant, and his conviction was therefore reversed.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report