Armour v. State

Under the circumstances, trial counsel was not deficient in failing to object when the government violated the discovery statute by failing to disclose 47 witnesses less than 10 days before trial.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Demarcus Armour challenges his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Bernard Glass. We affirm the judgments of conviction, but we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.1 1. The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, showed the following. On April 3, 2007, Appellant’s brothers, Montraceus and Demetrius Sims, fought with Jeqavius and Montrez Jones at the Thomasville Heights housing project in Atlanta. Jeqavius Jones shot Demetrius Sims several times in the arm and leg with a 9mm handgun. About an hour later, Appellant and his cousin, co-defendant Damien Norris, jumped out of a van at the housing project and opened fire. Appellant was heard shouting, “I’m going to kill all you f — — — n — — —” as he started shooting. Montrez Jones returned fire with his 9mm pistol as Appellant and Norris ran to a breezeway. Multiple witnesses saw two men running from the breezeway while still shooting. A bystander, 16-year-old Bernard Glass, was struck in the back by a .38 caliber bullet as he shielded another child; the wound was fatal. In photographic lineups, at trial, or both, five witnesses identified Appellant as one of the gunmen shooting toward Glass. Police recovered non-9mm shell casings from the breezeway. At trial, Appellant admitted being at the crime scene but denied being a shooter.

When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. See also Vega v. State , 285 Ga. 32, 33 673 SE2d 223 2009 ” ‘It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.’ ” citation omitted.

Armour v. State

Under the circumstances, trial counsel was not deficient in failing to object when the government violated the discovery statute by failing to disclose 47 witnesses less than 10 days before trial.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report