Durden v. State

The defendant was not entitled to a mistrial after a witness spontaneously remarked that he took a lie detector test since the witness did not apprise the jury of the results of the test and the trial court's prompt curative instruction prevented any prejudicial impact.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Kendra Durden was convicted of murder, felony murder, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime arising out of the shooting death of Patrick Ragan.1 Finding no error, we affirm.

1. The jury was authorized to find that on August 28, 1998 appellant drove three associate gang members to the Kroger in Conyers. While appellant and fellow gang member Rory Hill were standing in line to purchase an item, Hill noticed Ragan paying for groceries with a large amount of cash. Appellant and Hill followed Ragan out of the store and, along with Robert Winkfield and appellant’s step-brother Delvin Henderson, chased Ragan as he drove out of the parking lot. Appellant was driving as they pursued Ragan and according to other occupants in the vehicle throughout the pursuit appellant was “dancing” and appeared “excited, crumped, happy.” When she pulled next to Ragan’s car appellant instructed Winkfield to “get that car right there . . . don’t punk out on me now.” Winkfield fired several shots at Ragan. Some of the shots shattered Ragan’s window and caused him to lose control of the car and swerve off the road. Ragan’s death was caused by one bullet which pierced his aorta and penetrated his lung. Appellant stopped her car after Ragan ran off the road and started to get out, but changed her mind when her accomplices threatened to leave her at the scene. Hill and Henderson were given immunity for testifying. Appellant testified that she was coerced into her actions by threats and intimidation from Winkfield, a ranking gang member.

Durden v. State

The defendant was not entitled to a mistrial after a witness spontaneously remarked that he took a lie detector test since the witness did not apprise the jury of the results of the test and the trial court's prompt curative instruction prevented any prejudicial impact.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report