Adkins v. State

The trial court did not err in failing to sever the defendant's trial where all three co-defendants had complimentary, rather than antagonistic defenses and the crimes were committed simultaneously.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The appellant, Demetric Adkins “Adkins”, along with his brother Marlon Adkins “Marlon”, and his cousin Kevin Adkins “Kevin”, were charged with aggravated assault and murder, stemming from the shooting death of Charles Givens.1 The three defendants were jointly tried, and all three were convicted of malice murder and aggravated assault. Adkins was sentenced to life imprisonment for malice murder, plus a consecutive twenty years for aggravated assault. This Court has already affirmed Marlon’s2 and Kevin’s3 convictions. For the reasons that follow, we now affirm Adkins’s convictions. 1. As more fully set forth in the previous two Adkins cases,4 the evidence would have authorized a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Adkins, Marlon, and Kevin fired numerous shots on a crowded neighborhood street in an attempt to shoot several men with whom they had been feuding; that the murder and aggravated assault victims were innocent bystanders; and that, shortly after the shootings, Marlon told a friend that he, Kevin, and Adkins had committed the crimes in question. The evidence also shows that a friend of Adkins saw him with a shotgun shortly after the shooting; that the shotgun had red shells; and that Adkins told the friend that the gun had been used in the shootings. Forensic evidence established that red shotgun shells were found at the scene of the shooting. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Adkins guilty of malice murder and aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.5

2. Adkins contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants. To prevail on this claim, Adkins has the burden to show that the joint trial resulted in clear prejudice and a denial of due process.6 We conclude that he has failed to carry this burden.

Adkins v. State

The trial court did not err in failing to sever the defendant's trial where all three co-defendants had complimentary, rather than antagonistic defenses and the crimes were committed simultaneously.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report