CourtListener 10680204

Full text

320 Ga. 485
FINAL COPY

S24A1125. SCOTT v. THE STATE.

ELLINGTON, Justice.

Lewarner Jaron Scott appeals his convictions for murder and

other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Kevin

Compton.1 Scott contends that the State’s evidence was insufficient

1 Compton was shot early on the morning of July 12, 2014, and he died

the next day. Scott was indicted by a Cobb County grand jury in connection
with Compton’s death on September 25, 2014, on charges of malice murder
(Count 1), felony murder (Count 2), aggravated assault (Count 3), and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 4). The grand
jury also indicted Scott in connection with the same incident for the aggravated
assault of Brandon McMurtry (Count 5) and possession of a firearm during the
commission of that crime (Count 6), as well as the aggravated assault of
McKinley Bain (Count 7) and possession of a firearm during the commission of
that crime (Count 8). Following a trial in August 2015, a jury found Scott guilty
on all counts. The trial court sentenced Scott on September 3, 2015, to serve
life in prison on Count 1, five years in prison on Count 4, 20 years in prison on
Count 5, five years in prison on Count 6, 20 years in prison on Count 7, and
five years in prison on Count 8. The sentences on Counts 4 and 5 run
consecutively to the sentence on Count 1, and the sentence on Count 6 runs
consecutively to the sentence on Count 5. The sentence on Count 7 also runs
consecutively to the sentence on Count 1, and the sentence on Count 8 runs
consecutively to the sentence on Count 7, but the sentence on Count 7 runs
concurrently to the sentence on Count 5, and the sentence on Count 8 runs
concurrently to the sentence on Count 6. These sentences add up to a total of
life plus 25 years to serve in prison. Count 2 was vacated by operation of law,
and Count 3 merged into Count 1 for sentencing.
Scott’s trial counsel filed a timely motion for new trial on September 25,
to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt because it did

not sufficiently identify him as the shooter. We conclude, however,

that the evidence was sufficient to support Scott’s convictions

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scott was at a Kennesaw nightclub with friends in the early

morning hours of July 12, 2014, when a bottle was thrown, hitting

and seriously injuring Scott’s friend, Jawaree Hill. Compton was

also at the nightclub that morning with two friends, Brandon

McMurtry and McKinley Bain. As the bottle was thrown, an

altercation broke out inside the nightclub, and Compton and his

friends decided to leave. The three walked out of the club, got into

McMurtry’s car, and drove toward the parking lot exit. McMurtry

2015. Scott subsequently filed a motion to represent himself on appeal, along
with a pro se “Amended Motion for New Trial,” on June 21, 2018. After filing
a motion to withdraw at Scott’s request on November 26, 2018, Scott’s
appointed post-conviction counsel filed an amended motion for new trial on
December 17, 2018. At a hearing in February 2019, Scott opted to proceed with
his appointed counsel’s representation, and post-conviction counsel then filed
an amended motion for new trial on March 8, 2019, and another on March 11,
2019. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial, as
amended, on August 3, 2023, and Scott’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal.
The appeal was docketed to the August 2024 term of this Court and submitted
for a decision on the briefs.
2
was driving the car out of the parking lot onto the road when

gunshots rang out and Compton received a fatal gunshot wound to

the head. McMurtry told investigating officers at the time that as he

drove toward the exit, he noticed in “a quick blur” a man wearing

blue, and he testified at trial that he remembered the person was

wearing blue and that he was about a yard or two from his car.

Two witnesses at trial testified that they saw a man with

dreadlocks and a blue shirt walking in the parking lot carrying a

gun shortly before the shooting. One of the witnesses saw the man

go to a car to retrieve the weapon before the shooting, and after the

shooting, the other witness saw the man, still holding the gun, walk

back toward the nightclub. That witness then saw the man drive a

silver car to the front of the nightclub and tell someone to get in

before speeding away.

One of Scott’s friends testified that after Hill was taken outside

the nightclub to wait for an ambulance, Scott, who had driven to the

club in a “little gray [Dodge] Neon,” was out front with his car, which

he wanted Hill to get in. A security guard who was waiting with Hill

3
testified that he saw a man with dreadlocks drive up in front of the

nightclub in a gray Dodge Neon. When the driver told Hill to get in

the car, the security guard told the driver that Hill needed to go to

the hospital for medical treatment.

A police officer responding to the scene arrived to see a small

gray car parked in front of the nightclub as a man covered in blood

was brought outside. The officer then observed the car speed out of

the parking lot. A still photograph taken from the officer’s dashcam

video showed two men standing by the gray car, and, at trial, one of

Scott’s friends identified one of the men in the photograph as himself

and the other man, who had dreadlocks and a light-colored shirt, as

Scott.

Casings retrieved from the crime scene were later matched to

a spent shell casing found in Scott’s house. The casing was found in

an envelope in a box in which a handgun was sold. A receipt for the

purchase of the handgun was found with the box and showed that

Scott purchased the weapon a few months prior to the crime.

Evidence showed that the manufacturer of Scott’s handgun

4
customarily includes an envelope containing “an expended

cartridge” in the box with a new firearm to certify that the gun “was

fireable” when it was shipped. Although the weapon used in the

shooting was never found, testing showed that casings found at the

crime scene, the bullet retrieved during the autopsy of Compton’s

body, and the spent casing found at Scott’s home were all from the

same gun.

When this Court evaluates a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence as a matter of constitutional due process, it “view[s] the

evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts

and ask[s] whether any rational trier of fact could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which

she was convicted.” Lopez v. State, 318 Ga. 664, 667 (2) (898 SE2d

441) (2024) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B)

(99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979)). “[I]t is the jury’s role to resolve

conflicts in the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.”

Overstreet v. State, 312 Ga. 565, 572 (1) (a) (864 SE2d 14) (2021)

(citation and punctuation omitted). “This Court does not reweigh

5
evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is

reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to

the jury’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence.”

Harris v. State, 304 Ga. 276, 278 (1) (818 SE2d 530) (2018) (citation

and punctuation omitted).

And where, as here, a conviction is based on circumstantial

evidence, OCGA § 24-14-6 requires that “the proved facts shall not

only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude

every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the

accused.” “Whether any alternative hypotheses are reasonable and

whether the circumstantial evidence excludes any such hypotheses

are questions for the jury,” and this Court “will not disturb the jury’s

findings on those questions unless they are insupportable as a

matter of law.” Rashad v. State, 318 Ga. 199, 206 (2) (897 SE2d 760)

(2024) (citation and punctuation omitted). “[N]ot every hypothesis is

a reasonable one,” however, “and the evidence need not exclude

every conceivable inference or hypothesis — only those that are

reasonable.” Graves v. State, 306 Ga. 485, 487 (1) (831 SE2d 747)

6
(2019) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original).

The evidence presented at trial, though circumstantial,

authorized the jury to reject the alternative hypotheses raised by

Scott that some other, unidentified person in the parking lot shot at

Compton, McMurtry, and Bain and that the manufacturer of Scott’s

gun mistakenly put the wrong spent casing — from a gun that

happened to be used in Compton’s murder — in his gun box or that

someone else put that casing there. See OCGA § 24-14-6. Moreover,

the evidence showed that after Scott’s friend was injured, a man

matching Scott’s description retrieved a gun from his car and walked

across the parking lot with it shortly before the shooting and walked

back toward the club afterward, still holding the gun. McMurtry also

caught a glimpse of someone wearing the same color as the man with

the gun within a few yards of his car right before the shooting. The

man with the gun then got into a car and drove to the front of the

nightclub. That man was later identified as Scott, and the car was

the same color, make, and model as the one Scott drove to the

nightclub that night. After police arrived on the scene, Scott sped

7
out of the parking lot. Spent casings found at the scene of the

shooting and a spent casing found at Scott’s house were later

determined to have come from the same gun. This and other

evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Scott’s

convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. See Wilson v. State, 319 Ga.

550, 553-554 (1) (905 SE2d 557) (2024) (evidence sufficient to

support defendant’s murder conviction where defendant was in the

vicinity of the shooting, he was seen driving car connected to

shooting a few minutes before and a short distance away from the

shooting, and shell casing found at the scene was ejected from the

same firearm as a shell casing found in that car).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

8
Decided December 10, 2024.

Murder. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge Harris.

Brian A. Hobbs, for appellant.

Flynn D. Broady, Jr., District Attorney, Linda J. Dunikoski,

Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General,

Beth A. Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Meghan H. Hill, Clint C.

Malcolm, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Ashleigh D. Headrick,

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: December 10, 2024

S24A1125. SCOTT v. THE STATE.

ELLINGTON, Justice.

Lewarner Jaron Scott appeals his convictions for murder and

other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Kevin

Compton.1 Scott contends that the State’s evidence was insufficient

1 Compton was shot early on the morning of July 12, 2014, and he died

the next day. Scott was indicted by a Cobb County grand jury in connection
with Compton’s death on September 25, 2014, on charges of malice murder
(Count 1), felony murder (Count 2), aggravated assault (Count 3), and
possession of firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 4). The grand
jury also indicted Scott in connection with the same incident for the aggravated
assault of Brandon McMurtry (Count 5) and possession of a firearm during the
commission of that crime (Count 6), as well as the aggravated assault of
McKinley Bain (Count 7) and possession of a firearm during the commission of
that crime (Count 8). Following a trial in August 2015 , a jury found Scott
guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Scott on September 3, 2015, to
serve life in prison on Count 1, five years in prison on Count 4, twenty years in
prison on Count 5, five years in prison on Count 6, twenty years in prison on
Count 7, and five years in prison on Count 8. The sentences on Counts 4 and 5
run consecutively to the sentence on Count 1, and the sentence on Count 6 runs
consecutively to the sentence on Count 5. The sentence on Count 7 also runs
consecutively to the sentence on Count 1, and the sentence on Count 8 runs
consecutively to the sentence on Count 7, but the sentence on Count 7 runs
to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt because it did

not sufficiently identify him as the shooter. We conclude, however,

that the evidence was sufficient to support Scott’s convictions

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scott was at a Kennesaw nightclub with friends in the early

morning hours of July 12, 2014, when a bottle was thrown, hitting

and seriously injuring Scott’s friend, Jawaree Hill. Compton was

also at the nightclub that morning with two friends, Brandon

McMurtry and McKinley Bain. As the bottle was thrown, an

altercation broke out inside the nightclub, and Compton and his

concurrently to the sentence on Count 5, and the sentence on Count 8 runs
concurrently to the sentence on Count 6. These sentences add up to a total of
life plus 25 years to serve in prison. Count 2 was vacated by operation of law
and Count 3 merged into Count 1 for sentencing.
Scott’s trial counsel filed a timely motion for new trial on September 25,
2015. Scott subsequently filed a motion to represent himself on appeal, along
with a pro se “Amended Motion for New Trial,” on June 21, 2018. After filing
a motion to withdraw at Scott’s request on November 26, 2018, Scott’s
appointed post-conviction counsel filed an amended motion for new trial on
December 17, 2018. . At a hearing in February 2019, Scott opted to proceed
with his appointed counsel’s representation, and post-conviction counsel then
filed an amended motion for new trial on March 8, 2019, and another on March
11, 2019. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial,
as amended, on August 3, 2023, and Scott’s counsel filed a timely notice of
appeal. The appeal was docketed to the August 2024 term of this Court and
submitted for a decision on the briefs.
2
friends decided to leave. The three walked out of the club, got into

McMurtry’s car, and drove toward the parking lot exit. McMurtry

was driving the car out of the parking lot onto the road when

gunshots rang out and Compton received a fatal gunshot wound to

the head. McMurtry told investigating officers at the time that as he

drove toward the exit, he noticed in “a quick blur” a man wearing

blue, and he testified at trial that he remembered the person was

wearing blue and that he was about a yard or two from his car.

Two witnesses at trial testified that they saw a man with

dreadlocks and a blue shirt walking in the parking lot carrying a

gun shortly before the shooting. One of the witnesses saw the man

go to a car to retrieve the weapon before the shooting, and after the

shooting, the other witness saw the man, still holding the gun, walk

back toward the nightclub. That witness then saw the man drive a

silver car to the front of the nightclub and tell someone to get in

before speeding away.

One of Scott’s friends testified that after Hill was taken outside

the nightclub to wait for an ambulance, Scott, who had driven to the

3
club in a “little gray [Dodge] Neon,” was out front with his car, which

he wanted Hill to get in. A security guard who was waiting with Hill

testified that he saw a man with dreadlocks drive up in front of the

nightclub in a gray Dodge Neon. When the driver told Hill to get in

the car, the security guard told the driver that Hill needed to go to

the hospital for medical treatment.

A police officer responding to the scene arrived to see a small

gray car parked in front of the nightclub as a man covered in blood

was brought outside. The officer then observed the car speed out of

the parking lot. A still photograph taken from the officer’s dashcam

video showed two men standing by the gray car, and, at trial, one of

Scott’s friends identified one of the men in the photograph as himself

and the other man, who had dreadlocks and a light-colored shirt, as

Scott.

Casings retrieved from the crime scene were later matched to

a spent shell casing found in Scott’s house. The casing was found in

an envelope in a box in which a handgun was sold. A receipt for the

purchase of the handgun was found with the box and showed that

4
Scott purchased the weapon a few months prior to the crime.

Evidence showed that the manufacturer of Scott’s handgun

customarily includes an envelope containing “an expended

cartridge” in the box with a new firearm to certify that the gun “was

fireable” when it was shipped. Although the weapon used in the

shooting was never found, testing showed that casings found at the

crime scene, the bullet retrieved during the autopsy of Compton’s

body, and the spent casing found at Scott’s home were all from the

same gun.

When this Court evaluates a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence as a matter of constitutional due process, it “view[s] the

evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts

and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which

she was convicted.” Lopez v. State, 318 Ga. 664, 667 (2) (898 SE2d

441) (2024) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (99

SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979)). “[I]t is the jury’s role to resolve

conflicts in the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.”

5
Overstreet v. State, 312 Ga. 565, 572 (1) (a) (864 SE2d 14) (2021)

(citation and punctuation omitted). “This Court does not reweigh

evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is