Zellars v. State

The trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence in which the defendant shot two other victims after socializing and arguing with them to show his course of conduct and bent of mind in resolving disputes.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The appellant, Rowland Zellars, appeals from his conviction for the malice murder of John Jefferson.1 Zellars raises numerous issues, including that the trial court violated the continuing witness rule by permitting a photographic lineup and admonition sheet to go to the jury room; that the trial court erred in permitting the trial to proceed on an indictment that contained several counts that were barred by the statute of limitations; and that the trial court erred in ruling against his claim that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no merit to Zellars’s contentions, we affirm his conviction. 1. At trial, the State presented evidence that on July 30, 1994, Zellars was talking and drinking beer with several of his neighbors —John Jefferson, Letitia Key Jefferson’s wife, and Harold Neal. Neal testified that he, Zellars, Jefferson, and Key were all friends; that he Neal rented a room to Zellars; and that he and Zellars visited socially on numerous occasions. According to Neal and Key, Zellars got into an argument with Jefferson and Key, and the dispute culminated when Zellars pulled a gun and shot Jefferson and Key. Jefferson died as a result of his wounds, but Key did not. After the incident, Zellars never returned to the residence in which he had been living, and never returned to a job that he had held for almost a year. In 2000, Zellars surrendered to the police.

Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that it was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found Zellars guilty of malice murder beyond a reasonable doubt.2

Zellars v. State

The trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence in which the defendant shot two other victims after socializing and arguing with them to show his course of conduct and bent of mind in resolving disputes.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report