Marshall v. State

After being wounded in a drive-by shooting, the defendant and another man approached the suspected shooter on the premise of acquiring drugs, shot him when he got into their car, dumped him onto the street and shot him two more times, as he lay beside the roadway.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Quincy Marshall was convicted of murder and related crimes,1 resulting in a life sentence. He appeals, alleging numerous trial court errors. Having reviewed the record, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding relevant testimony concerning a witness’s incarceration at the time of trial. Because the excluded testimony was cumulative of other admitted evidence, however, the trial court’s error was harmless. The trial court also erred by charging the jury that it could presume intent to kill from the use of deadly weapon. Because appellant was convicted of felony murder and not malice murder, however, the State was not required to establish an intention to kill, and therefore the improper charge was harmless error. Finding appellant’s other allegations of error to be without merit, we affirm.

The evidence of record shows that appellant was shot and injured, and his friend killed, during a drive-by shooting. Appellant suspected Keo Morris of involvement in the shooting and drove to Morris’s neighborhood with an accomplice. A witness observed appellant approach Morris and ask about drugs. Morris went into his house, apparently to retrieve drugs, then exited the house and entered the back seat of appellant’s car. Appellant rode in the front passenger seat, and his accomplice drove. After the car traveled up the street and paused, witnesses heard a gunshot and observed appellant push Morris out of the car. Two more shots were fired from the front passenger window where appellant sat, killing Morris as he lay beside the roadway. The car then sped away. Approximately two hours after the shooting, police knocked on the doors and windows of appellant’s home and received no answer. Two hours later, a second attempt to find appellant at his home also was unsuccessful. At trial, appellant presented an alibi defense, claiming that he was at his home at the time of the shooting.

Marshall v. State

After being wounded in a drive-by shooting, the defendant and another man approached the suspected shooter on the premise of acquiring drugs, shot him when he got into their car, dumped him onto the street and shot him two more times, as he lay beside the roadway.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report