Kidd v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce on re-direct the prior consistent statements of two witnesses whose veracity was challenged on cross-examination.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Michael Kidd appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime stemming from the shooting death of Ronald Davenport.1 Finding no error, we affirm.

1. Viewed in a light supporting the jury’s verdict, the evidence at trial showed that in August 1999, appellant went looking for and threatened to kill the victim because the victim had assaulted appellant’s sister who was the victim’s ex-girlfriend. On September 17, 1999, the victim, his current girlfriend and her infant were driving together on a road in Richmond County, when a white Ford Taurus began following them. The victim pulled off the road into a parking lot and the white car pulled up and parked behind the victim’s car. The victim exited his car and appellant emerged from the white car. A witness testified that he saw something shiny in appellant’s hand and heard the victim ask appellant whether appellant had a gun. The two men exchanged words and then engaged in a fight in which they were closely locked together. Two witnesses testified that they heard three gunshots and saw the victim stagger to the ground. The victim’s girlfriend testified that she saw a gun in appellant’s hand and that there were two gunshots—one shot that went off while the two men were struggling and another shot which appellant fired while pointing the gun at the prone victim. All eyewitnesses to the shooting testified that the victim was unarmed. After the shooting, appellant fled the scene in his car and admittedly threw the gun away on the side of the road. The gun was not recovered.

Kidd v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce on re-direct the prior consistent statements of two witnesses whose veracity was challenged on cross-examination.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report