Young v. State

The state properly showed a connection between the murder the defendant was on trial for and a previous murder involving the same weapon, since evidence of the first murder provided motive for the second.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This Court granted Kareem Kenyatta Young’s “Young” application for interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s ruling that the State could introduce evidence of a prior act at his trial. Finding that even though the trial court misapplied this Court’s precedent in Williams v. State , 261 Ga. 640 409 SE2d 649 1991, it nonetheless reached the correct result, we affirm. As this is an interlocutory appeal, the record is not completely developed. But, according to the State’s proffer of evidence, Arkeem Young “Arkeem” was shot and killed outside his home on July 20, 2005. Young, Arkeem’s cousin, called 911 and reported that Arkeem had been shot from a passing vehicle. However, physical evidence was inconsistent with his version of the event, and a handgun matching the shell casing found at the scene was linked to Young. He was ultimately indicted for malice murder and other charges arising from Arkeem’s death. The State filed a notice of its intent to present evidence of an independent transaction, see USCR 31.3, specifically the felony murder of Antonio Spurgeon.

Spurgeon was shot and killed during an armed robbery at a convenience store on December 22, 2004. At first, the investigating officers believed Young to be a witness to this event, but he eventually became a suspect in the shooting of Spurgeon. Nonetheless, on June 22, 2005, the grand jury returned a “no bill” against Young concerning this event. After the return of the “no bill,” the handgun connected to Young in Arkeem’s shooting was also shown to have been used in the Spurgeon shooting. The State then, in connection with the proffer of evidence for its USCR 31.3 motion, contended, among other things, that Young’s involvement in the Spurgeon shooting shed light on his motive for shooting Arkeem, that is, that Young had determined that Arkeem’s knowledge of Young’s involvement in the Spurgeon shooting put him in jeopardy of Arkeem “turning snitch” on Young.

Young v. State

The state properly showed a connection between the murder the defendant was on trial for and a previous murder involving the same weapon, since evidence of the first murder provided motive for the second.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report