Young v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to reopen the evidence during defense counsel's closing argument, as it was not unreasonable for the trial court to interpret the argument at issue as an attack on the State's failure to conduct adequate ballistics testing.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Marquis Young was tried by a Chatham County jury and convicted of murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Young appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to reopen the evidence after closing argument had begun and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record and briefs, we see no error and affirm.1

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Ramone Bowers was repeatedly and fatally shot with a .40-caliber pistol on East Duffy Street in Savannah on the evening of September 25, 2006. Several witnesses heard gunshots, and they saw the gunman, whom they could not identify, stand on the bumper of a white SUV and shoot down at the victim, who was in front of the SUV. One witness recalled seeing the gunman hold on to the spoiler of the SUV with his right hand as he shot Bowers with a weapon that he fired from his left hand. Fingerprints lifted from the spoiler of that SUV matched fingers on Young’s right hand, and Young was shown to be left-handed. In addition, a jailhouse informant testified that Young admitted to shooting Bowers and said that he did so because Bowers had shot at him a few days before. According to the informant, Young said that he jumped on a “car or truck” and shot down at Bowers, who was in front of the vehicle. Young also acknowledged that he might have left his fingerprints on the vehicle when he jumped onto it, the informant said.

Young v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to reopen the evidence during defense counsel's closing argument, as it was not unreasonable for the trial court to interpret the argument at issue as an attack on the State's failure to conduct adequate ballistics testing.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report