Mack v. State

Newly discovered evidence that would authorized the defendant's conviction as a party to the crimes did not entitle him to a new trial.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

David Jermaine Mack was found guilty by a jury of four counts of aggravated assault, four counts of aggravated assault with intent to rob, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.1 Mack appeals from the denial of his motions and amended motions for new trial. 1. Mack challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Construed to support the verdict, the evidence at trial showed the following:

On June 11, 1999 Mack, who had previously been an employee of a Maxway retail store, visited the store and spoke with Uklisha Scott, an assistant manager of the store whom Mack had known when he worked at the store. Mack, who was dressed in a white sleeveless tee shirt and black pants, asked Scott what time the store closed that night. After the store closed, Scott, and three other Maxway employees, Dewitt Darling, Joan Wells and Julia Styles, were walking to their cars when they were approached by a man who put a gun to Scott’s head and demanded money, first from Scott, and then the other victims. The assailant was dressed in black sweat pants, a white sleeveless tee shirt and sneakers, and had a shirt with eye holes cut-out covering his face. The victims did not have any money, and the assailant fled the scene on foot. The victims called 911, and Mack was apprehended within a few minutes close to the scene of the crime and in the vicinity where the victims had seen the assailant flee. At the time he was apprehended, Mack was wearing black pants but was shirtless. A white sleeveless tee shirt was found turned wrong side out in some nearby bushes. The weapon and mask used in the robbery were not recovered. Footprints observed along the path between the crime scene and the area where Mack was apprehended matched the size and soles of Mack’s shoes. Mack was returned to the scene and identified as the robber based on his clothing, shoes and “build.”

Mack v. State

Newly discovered evidence that would authorized the defendant's conviction as a party to the crimes did not entitle him to a new trial.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report