CourtListener 10846023

Full text

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: February 17, 2026

S25A1111. DEMPSEY v. THE STATE.

LAGRUA, Justice.

Appellant Le’Quan Dempsey appeals his convictions for felony

murder and other crimes related to the shooting deaths of John

Pendrak and Aiden Reynolds. 1 On appeal, Dempsey argues that his

convictions should be reversed because (1) the evidence was legally

insufficient to support the verdicts, and (2) the trial court abused its

—————————————————————
1 Pendrak and Reynolds were killed on July 21, 2022. On November 16,

2022, a Gwinnett County grand jury indicted Dempsey for the following counts:
felony murder predicated on aggravated assault (Counts 1 and 2); felony
murder predicated on armed robbery (Counts 3 and 4); aggravated assault
(Counts 5 and 6); armed robbery (Counts 7 and 8); and possession of a firearm
during the commission of a felony (Counts 9 and 10). Dempsey was tried from
April 10 to 24, 2023, and the jury found Dempsey guilty on all counts. The trial
court sentenced Dempsey to life without the possibility of parole on Counts 3
and 4, to run concurrently; five years in confinement on Count 9, to run
consecutively to Count 3; and five years in confinement on Count 10, to run
consecutively to Count 9. The remaining counts merged or were vacated by
operation of law. Dempsey filed a timely motion for new trial, which he later
amended through new counsel on October 28, 2024. After holding a hearing on
the motion, the trial court denied it on April 15, 2025. Dempsey filed a timely
notice of appeal to this Court, and the case was docketed in this Court to the
August 2025 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
discretion by admitting evidence that Dempsey was on probation at

the time of the incident. For the reasons set forth below, we reject

Dempsey’s arguments. Accordingly, we affirm.

The evidence presented at trial showed that, during the early

morning hours of July 21, 2022, Pendrak and Reynolds were shot

and killed at Sunset Park in the Norris Lake neighborhood of

Gwinnett County. Prior to that night, on July 19, Reynolds received

a message on Instagram from an Instagram account—later

determined to be Dempsey’s—asking if he had marijuana for sale.

Reynolds responded that he did not know the Instagram user who

was contacting him, and the user indicated that he got Reynolds’s

name from a person at “the lake” because the user was “trying to

shop.” Throughout July 19 and 20, the user of Dempsey’s Instagram

account and Reynolds exchanged multiple Instagram messages and

conducted Instagram video calls concerning the proposed drug deal.

On July 20, Reynolds called Pendrak and told Pendrak that he

“had a play,” and Pendrak’s girlfriend, Kayla Black, overheard the

conversation. Black heard Reynolds tell Pendrak that he “had

2
somebody that wanted four pounds [of marijuana] for $200.” Black

told Pendrak that he was “crazy” and the deal “didn’t sound right”

because four pounds of marijuana was worth much more than $200.

Additionally, according to Black, Pendrak only possessed two and a

half ounces of marijuana at the time. Later that night, Black

overheard Reynolds on an Instagram video call talking to someone

about the drug deal, and in the background, Black heard another

person talking.

On the night of July 20, Black, Reynolds, and Pendrak drove in

Reynolds’s car to Sunset Park, which was the location proposed via

a message from the user of Dempsey’s Instagram account. Black

testified that Pendrak and Reynolds did not communicate with

anyone other than the user of Dempsey’s Instagram account

regarding their plan to go to the park that night. Black, Reynolds,

and Pendrak arrived at the park at approximately 12:00 a.m. on

July 21, and they sat in the car and waited. At 12:25 a.m., the user

of Dempsey’s Instagram account messaged Reynolds saying, “Here.”

3
Surveillance videos from a nearby house 2 showed that, at 12:26 a.m.,

Reynolds flashed his car’s lights; Pendrak and Reynolds got out of

the car; and another person appeared near the park entrance.

Pendrak was wearing a backpack, and Black testified that Pendrak

had marijuana in his possession. Black stayed in the car, and she

saw someone “walking down the hill” to meet Pendrak and Reynolds

in the park.

Black then put her head down and fell asleep. She woke up to

the sound of gunshots, and she looked for Reynolds and Pendrak but

did not see them. Black then saw two people wearing all black, and

she testified that “one was a taller more slimmer build,” and the

other “was a little shorter, but more thick.” Black testified that she

saw the person with the “bigger body, the wide body” tuck a gun into

his or her waistband. Black then saw someone from one of the

nearby houses come outside, and the two people from the park

looked in that direction and “turned around and ran off.” After they

—————————————————————
2 These surveillance videos were admitted by stipulation of the parties

and played for the jury at trial.
4
ran off, Black got out of the car and approached Reynolds and

Pendrak, who were lying on the ground, and she attempted to render

aid. Black then called 911.

After Black called 911, Gwinnett County Police Officer Johnny

Norman arrived at the park, where he found the bodies of Pendrak

and Reynolds and secured the scene.3 At the scene, investigators

recovered multiple 9mm cartridge casings, all of which were fired

from the same firearm. Additionally, investigators recovered a BB

gun, which was tucked into the waistband of Pendrak’s pants, but

they did not recover any firearms at the scene. The backpack that

Pendrak was carrying when he arrived at the park was missing.

Gwinnett County Police Corporal William Webb also

responded to the scene with his assigned patrol canine, and Corporal

Webb was informed that the suspects ran towards a retaining wall

across the street from the park. Corporal Webb and his canine

started tracking near the retaining wall, and while they were

—————————————————————
3 The cause of death for Reynolds was multiple gunshot wounds to the

head, back, and right lower extremity. The cause of death for Pendrak was
multiple gunshot wounds to the back and the left upper extremity.
5
tracking, a witness approached Corporal Webb and said that she

saw a male in all black running up a nearby street. Corporal Webb

and his canine proceeded in that direction, and the canine tracked

to a house on Amy Road. Corporal Webb and other officers

attempted to do a “knock and talk,” but nobody answered the door.

Around 2:30 a.m., Gwinnett County Police Sergeant Brian

Pierson, the lead detective in the case, arrived on scene and spoke

to Black. Black told Sergeant Pierson that Reynolds had messaged

someone on Instagram regarding a drug deal, and Black provided

Reynolds’s Instagram account name to Sergeant Pierson. Sergeant

Pierson secured a search warrant for the information on Reynolds’s

Instagram account and found a conversation pertaining to a drug

deal between Reynolds and an Instagram user, “popshots_ej.”

During his investigation, Sergeant Pierson learned through two

witnesses, Madison Miller and McKenzie Brown, that the

“popshots_ej” Instagram account belonged to someone they knew as

“EJ.” Brown also told Sergeant Pierson that she went to high school

with “EJ” and “did his hair” at the Amy Road house about a week

6
before the murders.

Sergeant Pierson then obtained information from school

officials that Dempsey goes by “EJ,” and that another student,

Kejuan Davis, lived at the Amy Road house. After acquiring

Dempsey’s name and date of birth from school officials, Sergeant

Pierson learned that Dempsey was on probation, and Sergeant

Pierson “talked to [Dempsey’s] probation officer.” On August 5,

Sergeant Pierson went to the Amy Road house, which is a little over

1,000 feet from Sunset Park, where he spoke to two witnesses who

confirmed that Dempsey had recently been at the house.

On August 10, Sergeant Pierson interviewed Dempsey, who

was 16 at the time, at his home with his grandmother present.

During the interview, Dempsey gave his cell phone to Sergeant

Pierson. On August 15, after reading Dempsey the “Advice of Rights

to Juveniles” form, 4 Sergeant Pierson interviewed Dempsey again

in the presence of his grandmother at police headquarters.

—————————————————————
4 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966); Fare v. Michael C., 442 US

707 (1979); Clark v. State, 315 Ga. 423 (2023).

7
Throughout these interviews, Dempsey asserted that he was at

home in Avondale Estates during the time of the murders.

However, Dempsey’s explanations evolved as investigators

confronted him in the interviews. Specifically, Dempsey made the

following claims: (1) he deleted his “Instagram” prior to the murders

because he was on “probation,” and “they” said that he needed to

stay away from “negative, like, activities and stuff;” (2) he had not

been at the Amy Road house for several months prior to the

murders; (3) his Instagram account had recently been hacked; (4) he

used his Instagram account to make voice calls and send some

messages to Reynolds about the drug deal, and Davis also used

Dempsey’s Instagram account to send some messages; 5 (5) he did not

have his phone from July 19 to 24, 2022; (6) Davis used Dempsey’s

phone to communicate regarding the drug deal because Davis’s

phone was broken at the time;6 and (7) Amarion Johnson, an

—————————————————————
5 In his brief, Dempsey acknowledges that, viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence showed that his Instagram
account was used to set up the drug deal.
6 Contrary to Dempsey’s assertion, Davis’s cell phone records revealed

that his phone was connecting to cell towers during and around the time of the
8
acquaintance of Davis, and Davis committed the murders.7

Additionally, Dempsey stated that, after investigators searched the

Amy Road house, Davis called Dempsey and said that investigators

found a firearm inside the house.8

After Sergeant Pierson obtained a search warrant for the

information on Dempsey’s cell phone, the Gwinnett County Police

Department’s forensic lab completed a phone data extraction.

Investigators discovered several changes made to accounts on

Dempsey’s phone on the day of the murders. Specifically, (1) the

password for Dempsey’s Apple ID email was reset; (2) the “Find My

iPhone” feature on Dempsey’s phone was disabled; and (3)

Dempsey’s “popshots_ej” Instagram account was deleted. And, on

August 5, a factory reset of the phone occurred. After obtaining a

search warrant for Dempsey’s Instagram account, Sergeant Pierson

—————————————————————
murders. Sergeant Pierson testified that Davis moved to Chicago shortly after
the murders.
7 Johnson’s cell phone records showed that his phone was in Illinois

around the time of the murders.
8 Subsequent testing showed that this firearm did not match the

cartridge casings found at the crime scene.
9
found several videos that showed Dempsey at the Amy Road house

between July 17 and 20, 2022. Additionally, Dempsey’s Instagram

account included videos in which Dempsey was holding a Taurus

9mm handgun. Lastly, after examining Dempsey’s cell phone

records and the cell tower information around Sunset Park,

investigators confirmed that, between July 17 and 21, 2022,

Dempsey’s phone was in that area and calls were made from and

received by Dempsey’s phone to and from Dempsey’s grandmother,

with whom he lived.

Investigators also obtained “geofence” information from Google

for the Sunset Park area around the time of the murders but did not

see Dempsey’s cell phone within the geofence. However, Investigator

John Wilbanks with the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s Office

testified that Google geofence data is not always reliable because a

user will not appear within the geofence unless the user is accessing

a Google account during the requested timeframe.

At trial, along with presenting the evidence detailed above, the

State called Miller and Brown as witnesses. During Miller’s

10
testimony, she identified Dempsey’s Instagram account and stated

that Dempsey was at the Amy Road house in July 2022. Miller also

testified that she had seen Dempsey with a Taurus 9mm firearm

and that she previously held that firearm. Additionally, Miller

testified that, around 11:00 a.m. on July 21, Dempsey spoke to her

via Instagram and said that he was “going to get locked up for some

probation, something about his probation.” Brown testified that she

had seen Dempsey with a firearm, that she “did his hair” at the Amy

Road house around July 14, and that Davis lived at the Amy Road

house. Brown also testified that, after the murders, Miller called

Brown and told Brown that Dempsey killed Reynolds and Pendrak.

1. Dempsey argues that the evidence in this case was

insufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to convict him

of the crimes charged. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 319

(1979). This claim fails.

(a) When evaluating a constitutional due process challenge to

the sufficiency of the evidence, “the evidence presented at trial is

viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts to determine

11
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the crimes of which he was

convicted.” Johnson v. State, 316 Ga. 672, 680 (2023). “In making

this determination, we do not evaluate witness credibility, resolve

inconsistencies in the evidence, or assess the weight of the evidence;

these tasks are left to the sole discretion of the jury.” Ridley v. State,

315 Ga. 452, 455 (2023). “The jury’s verdicts will be upheld as long

as some competent evidence, even if contradicted, supports each fact

necessary to make out the State’s case.” Copeland v. State, 316 Ga.

452, 455 (2023).

Here, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find

Dempsey guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. As noted

above, when properly viewed in the light most favorable to the

verdicts, the evidence presented at trial established the following:

Dempsey communicated with Reynolds via Instagram to arrange a

drug deal, and Reynolds and Pendrak did not tell anyone other than

Dempsey that they would be at Sunset Park at the time that the

shooting occurred. After law enforcement arrived at the crime scene,

12
the police canine tracked from the crime scene to the Amy Road

house, where Dempsey had been prior to the murders, as shown by

the videos that Dempsey posted of himself on Instagram. Dempsey’s

Instagram account also included videos in which he was holding a

Taurus 9mm handgun. And, at the crime scene, investigators

recovered 9mm cartridge casings. Additionally, Dempsey contacted

Miller after the murders and said that he was going to get “locked

up” for violating his probation, and Miller told Brown that Dempsey

committed the murders.

Finally, the jury could infer that Dempsey lied to investigators

and attempted to destroy evidence on his cell phone in order to

conceal his involvement in the murders. See Bates v. State, 317 Ga.

809, 816 (2023) (noting that a defendant’s lie to police allowed the

jury to “infer that he was trying to hide his own participation” in a

murder); Nunnally v. State, 319 Ga. 701, 708 (2024) (concluding that

the evidence was sufficient where, among other things, the

defendant “attempted to delete call logs with [the victim] from his

phone to conceal his guilt”). Accordingly, when viewed in the light

13
most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial was

sufficient as a matter of constitutional due process to authorize a

rational jury to find Dempsey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of

the crimes for which he was convicted.

(b) Dempsey also asserts that, aside from evidence that his

Instagram account was used to facilitate the drug deal with Pendrak

and Reynolds, the evidence in this case “was weak circumstantial

evidence of guilt.” To the extent that Dempsey is asserting a

statutory claim under OCGA § 24-14-6, this argument also fails.

Under OCGA § 24-14-6, to support a conviction based on

circumstantial evidence, “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.” OCGA

§ 24-14-6. However, “[n]ot every hypothesis is a reasonable one, and

the evidence need not exclude every conceivable inference or

hypothesis, only the reasonable ones.” Bates, 317 Ga. at 814

(quotation marks omitted). “Whether alternative hypotheses are

reasonable is usually a question for the jury, and this Court will not

14
disturb the jury’s finding unless it is insufficient as a matter of law.”

Drennon v. State, 314 Ga. 854, 862 (2022) (cleaned up).

As an initial matter, Dempsey “has failed to identify any

specific alternative hypothesis that, in his estimation, the State

failed to disprove.” Weston v. State, 320 Ga. 472, 474 (2024). Instead,

Dempsey argues that he was not identified by any eyewitnesses or

connected by any physical evidence to the scene of the murders, and

that his guilt “was based substantially on evidence that his

Instagram account was used to facilitate the drug deal that preceded

the two deaths.” But Dempsey’s complaints regarding the State’s

evidence are unpersuasive because, “although the State is required

to prove its case with competent evidence, there is no requirement

that it prove its case with any particular sort of evidence.” Rodriguez

v. State, 309 Ga. 542, 546 (2020).

We conclude that the evidence presented at trial, even if

circumstantial, was sufficient to support Dempsey’s convictions as a

matter of Georgia statutory law. As recounted above, the evidence

established, among other things, that Dempsey communicated with

15
Reynolds to arrange a drug deal; Reynolds and Pendrak did not tell

anyone other than Dempsey that they would be at Sunset Park at

the time that the murders occurred; and Dempsey told Miller in the

morning hours after the murders that he was going to get “locked

up” for violating his probation. Moreover, based on Dempsey’s

inconsistent statements to investigators and the changes made to

accounts on Dempsey’s phone after the murders, the jury could infer

that Dempsey lied to investigators and destroyed evidence because

of consciousness of guilt. See Bates, 317 Ga. at 816. Accordingly,

because the evidence was legally sufficient to exclude every

reasonable hypothesis other than Dempsey’s guilt, this claim fails.

See Martin v. State, 316 Ga. 154, 156 (2023) (holding that evidence

was sufficient under OCGA § 24-14-6 where it showed, among other

things, that the defendant arranged a meeting via text message with

the victim prior to the victim’s murder).

2. Dempsey also argues that the trial court abused its

discretion by admitting evidence that he was on probation at the

time of the murders. Before trial, the State moved to admit evidence

16
showing that, at the time of the murders, Dempsey was on probation

for possession of a weapon inside a public school. After a pre-trial

hearing, the trial court ruled that the State was permitted to present

evidence showing that Dempsey was on probation when the murders

occurred because such evidence was relevant, but the State was

prohibited from introducing evidence about the charge for which

Dempsey was on probation.

At trial, the jury heard the following evidence related to

Dempsey’s probation. Sergeant Pierson testified that, after learning

from school officials that Dempsey goes by “EJ,” Sergeant Pierson

“found out [Dempsey] was on probation” and “talked to [Dempsey’s]

probation officer.” 9 Additionally, in Dempsey’s first interview with

investigators, when Sergeant Pierson asked Dempsey if he had an

Instagram account, Dempsey initially claimed that he had to delete

his “Instagram” for his “probation.” Throughout both of Dempsey’s

interviews with investigators, his probation status was referenced

—————————————————————
9 At trial, Sergeant Pierson did not testify about the content of that
conversation.
17
multiple times, primarily by Dempsey and his grandmother, but the

redacted interviews did not include any details concerning the

charge for which he was on probation. Finally, Miller testified that,

around 11:00 a.m. on the day of the murders, Dempsey said that he

was going to get “locked up” for violating his probation.

On appeal, Dempsey argues that the trial court abused its

discretion in admitting this probation-status evidence at trial

because it was not relevant under OCGA § 24-4-401 (“Rule 401”) and

should have been excluded under OCGA § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”) and

OCGA § 24-4-404(b) (“Rule 404(b)”). Because the probation-status

evidence was both relevant and intrinsic to the crimes charged, the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it, and this claim

fails. See Venturino v. State, 306 Ga. 391, 393 (2019) (“We review a

trial court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion

standard of review.” (quotation marks omitted)).

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the

existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of

the action more probable or less probable than it would be without

18
the evidence.” OCGA § 24-4-401. And we have explained that

evidence is admissible as intrinsic evidence, rather than extrinsic

evidence subject to Rule 404(b), when it is “an uncharged act arising

from the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged

offense, necessary to complete the story of the crime, or inextricably

intertwined with the evidence of the charged offense.” Keller v. State,

308 Ga. 492, 505 (2020) (quotation marks omitted). In applying this

test, we have said that evidence relating to “the chain of events” that

explains “the context, motive, and set-up of the crime is properly

admitted if it is linked in time and circumstances with the charged

crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the

crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.”

Heade v. State, 312 Ga. 19, 25 (2021). Moreover, “this sort of intrinsic

evidence remains admissible even if it incidentally places the

defendant’s character at issue.” Keller, 308 Ga. at 505.

In this case, the evidence regarding Dempsey’s probation

status was properly admitted by the trial court because it was both

relevant and intrinsic to the crimes charged. The evidence showed

19
that, when Sergeant Pierson interviewed Dempsey for the first time,

Dempsey initially claimed that he deleted his “Instagram” prior to

the murders because of his “probation.” But investigators

subsequently discovered that Dempsey’s “popshots_ej” account was

deleted in the early morning hours after the murders. Additionally,

throughout both of Dempsey’s interviews with investigators,

Dempsey’s description of how and why he used the “popshots_ej”

Instagram account—which linked him to the murders—changed,

and at one point, he even alleged that the “popshots_ej” account had

been “hacked” prior to the murders. Based on these shifting

explanations, the jury could infer that Dempsey actually had control

of his Instagram account during the pertinent time period and that

he lied about the reason for deleting it. See Bates, 317 Ga. at 816;

Jenkins v. State, 313 Ga. 81, 89 (2022) (“[T]he fact of an accused’s …

concealment ... is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt for

the charged offense, and thus of guilt itself.” (cleaned up)). In

addition, the other, brief references to Dempsey’s probation status—

which were admitted through testimony from Sergeant Pierson and

20
Miller as well as Dempsey’s two interviews with investigators—

arose in the context of demonstrating the progression of the murder

investigation. Accordingly, because the evidence regarding

Dempsey’s probation status was relevant and “inextricably

intertwined” with the other evidence demonstrating his involvement

in the murders, the evidence was properly admitted as intrinsic. See

Heade, 312 Ga. at 25.

However, “[e]ven when evidence is intrinsic, … it must also

satisfy Rule 403.” Harris v. State, 310 Ga. 372, 377 (2020) (quotation

marks omitted). “Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may

nevertheless be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Jackson v. State, 317

Ga. 95, 102 (2023) (quotation marks omitted). In its ruling on

Dempsey’s motion for a new trial, the trial court noted that “[n]o

witness or party used [the probation-status evidence] to impugn

[Dempsey’s] character or urge the jury to consider improper

matters,” and the trial court concluded that “the admission of [the

probation-status evidence] was proper and did not result in any

21
unfair prejudice.” We agree. Here, the references to Dempsey’s

probation status were brief, and the jury was never told why

Dempsey was on probation. Therefore, it is not likely that the jury

convicted Dempsey solely because of his probation status. See

Coleman v. State, 321 Ga. 476, 481 (2025) (concluding the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant’s

prior drug use where, among other things, it was “not likely that the

jury improperly convicted [the defendant] based solely on evidence

of her previous [drug use]”). For these reasons, the probative value

of the probation-status evidence was not substantially outweighed

by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Huff v. State, 299 Ga. 801, 805

(2016) (determining the trial court did not abuse its discretion where

it found that the probative value of testimony from the defendant’s

probation officer was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial

effect). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

admitting evidence that Dempsey was on probation at the time of

the murders.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.