Charlie Frank Stubbins was convicted of malice murder and armed robbery in connection with the shooting death of Labage Bojang and aggravated assault of William Asante.1 He contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress the arrest warrant and motion in limine to exclude evidence that he possessed a gun. Because the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, we affirm.
1. The evidence presented at trial shows that Stubbins and Michael Blackmon asked Bojang and Asante for a ride home after a nightclub closed.2 Blackmon and Stubbins were getting out of Bojang’s BMW when Blackmon asked Bojang for money. When Bojang responded that they did not have any money, he was shot. Asante got out of the car and asked what was going on. He heard another gunshot, began running away, and heard several more gunshots fired behind him. He had been shot three times in his legs and grazed by a fourth bullet. After the car left, he crawled to the nearest trailer for help. Police found Bojang dead in the ditch from four gunshot wounds to his chest and abdomen. The abandoned BMW was found the next day. Eight shell casings were found near Bojang, in the roadway, and in the car. A firearms examiner testified that seven of the eight shell casings and the four bullets recovered from Bojang’s body were fired from a nine-millimeter semi-automatic handgun that was found in a trailer under a couch where Stubbins slept on the morning of the shooting. Various witnesses saw Stubbins with a gun both before and after the shooting, although the testimony was conflicting about whether it was black or chrome. In his statement to police, Stubbins denied shooting a gun during the robbery and said that Blackmon used a black, nine-millimeter gun. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Stubbins guilty of the crimes charged.3
