Williams, Kendarius

Williams was convicted of murdering Derrick Johnson, a member of a rival gang. The impetus was that Johnson was now dating a girl who had broken up with one of Williams’s fellow gang members, Deandre Holmes. The shooting took place in Johnson’s apartment parking lot. Williams was in an SUV driven by Jermon Karson in which Holmes, Jonathan Fletcher, and perhaps Donald Hill were passengers. According to Karson, Holmes and Williams fired from the SUV. No guns were recovered but casings from two different handguns were found.

An officer testified to statements Williams made in which Williams claimed: 1) he had not spoken to Holmes in the weeks prior to the murder and did not know he was out of jail, 2) he had not seen Fletcher since three years before the murder, 3) he had never been in Karson’s SUV, and 4) he was playing video games all week. The State offered evidence from Karson that Williams had been in Karson’s SUV early that day with Holmes (and later Hill and Fletcher) when Williams participated in or committed two other shootings. The State also offered various pictures and social media posts—some predating the murder by months—showing Williams with firearms and apparently discussing crimes. The trial court admitted all of this over objection.

The court of appeals affirmed. It held that “the prior shootings provide necessary context for how the individuals involved in the murder (Karson, Holmes, and Williams) came together to commit the offense, especially because Karson testified that he had not previously met Williams.” Additionally, it all occurred within a few hours. Alternatively, it rebutted Williams’s alibi defense presented through the testifying officer. This did not run afoul of Rule 403 because Williams’s participation in the earlier shootings “tends to make it more probable” he committed the charged murder, the details and time spent on them were kept to a minimum, and the need was high because the victim’s girlfriend could not identify the shooter. [Karson’s accomplice testimony did that.]

As for the pictures and social media posts, the court of appeals held that some complaints were not preserved or inadequately briefed. For those that were, the court held they respectively helped establish 1) Williams’s relationship with Holmes, 2) show Williams holding a gun similar to the one described by Karson, 3) show that he had a jacket similar to one seen on a surveillance video between the earlier shootings, 4) show elements of planning, or 5) were posts from the day of the murder apparently referring to it. Its Rule 403 analysis adopted the State’s, which focused on the need for the evidence in light of its limited non-accomplice evidence and the short time spent on it.

Williams complains that none of this was admissible. He argues the evidence of other shootings was not “same-transaction contextual” because its absence would not render the State’s case incomplete or difficult to understand. Karson said the shootings were unrelated to the murder, and their presence together at the time of the murder could have been explained without the criminal details from earlier in the day. Williams also argues that the State cannot create its own need to rebut an alibi defense it presented through an officer on direct examination. Williams agrees with the Rule 403 analysis to the extent the evidence made conviction more likely; “impermissibly so.”

As for the pictures and posts, Williams argues that pictures of him with firearms were irrelevant because there was no description before the jury of the guns used and many were pictures taken weeks or months before the murder. They were impermissible character evidence that he was the type of person to commit a murder.