Markelle Demetrice Davis v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 104
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 3, 2021
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2021 Ark. App. 104 (Markelle Demetrice Davis v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Markelle Demetrice Davis v. State of Arkansas, 2021 Ark. App. 104 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 104 Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document DIVISION IV 2023.06.22 14:53:15 -05'00' No. CR-20-330

2023.001.20174

Opinion Delivered: March 3, 2021

MARKELLE DEMETRICE DAVIS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CR-19-321]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Appellant Markelle Davis was found guilty of first-degree murder by a Miller County

jury at a trial held January 6–8, 2020. He was sentenced to thirty-three years’ imprisonment.

On appeal he argues that the circuit court erred when it (1) admitted evidence of a prior

bad act and (2) allowed an officer to testify about a certain firearm and its magazines without

qualifying the officer as an expert witness. We affirm.

At trial, Davis conceded in his opening statement that he shot and killed the victim,

Jaqualyn Paxton, but that it was an accident stemming from horseplay. The defense framed

the issue at trial as a matter of which degree of homicide should apply.

Pertinent to this appeal, during the trial, evidence was introduced that on April 16,

2019, two friends were moving into a new apartment, and Davis was helping them move.

Sometime before 9:30 p.m., Davis and several of his friends went to Walmart, where Davis

was filmed inside the store with a gun in his possession. When they returned to the apartment, they were eventually joined by Jaqualyn Paxton and Aailayah Pearson. Davis and

Pearson began “play fighting,” and sometime around midnight, several of the friends went

outside to the parking lot where the “play fighting” escalated. Davis hit Pearson with his

gun. Paxton intervened, pulling Davis’s hair. Paxton and Davis took a few swings at each

other and were broken up by Pearson and another friend. Pearson and Paxton were standing

next to each other. Davis said, “I’ll shoot both you bitches.” He then raised his gun, cocked

it, and shot Paxton in the head from about three feet away. Paxton died.

Davis left the scene and was later stopped by police. Officers found a 30-round

extended magazine and some 9 mm rounds in the car, plus a regular 12-round short

magazine on Davis’s person. The gun was not recovered before trial.

Kameron Burns, one of the friends present that night, testified that Davis had the

gun in his possession at Walmart that evening. When the State sought to introduce the

video Burns filmed of Davis inside Walmart with his gun, Davis objected on the ground

that it was evidence of a prior bad act that was not admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b).

The court overruled the objection stating that it was relevant to show that he had the

weapon on the day of the crime, res gestae to this particular offense.

Burns further testified that Davis’s gun was a 9 mm Taurus G2C and that he had

been with Davis when Davis purchased the extended magazine for the gun. He also testified

that Davis owned two magazines, the extended one and the standard one that came with

the gun. Pearson testified that in the apartment before the shooting, Davis had the gun and

the extended magazine with bullets in it.

2 Shane Kirkland of the Texarkana Police Department Criminal Investigation Division

testified that he was the lead detective in the investigation of Paxton’s murder. He said that

one of the magazines recovered was for a Taurus G2 with the model number and

manufacturer stamped on it, that Taurus normally sells two magazines per gun if bought

from a dealer, and that the magazines normally are 12-round magazines for this particular

model. The other magazine recovered was not a factory-issued magazine but rather an

extended magazine issued by ProMag, which was compatible with the Taurus G2 because

the two magazines have the same magazine catch, location, and size as well as other identical

features.

He testified that the design of the ProMag magazine is the same as the Taurus-issued

magazine except for its length. At that point, Davis objected to Kirkland’s testimony “as to

the [magazine] fitting the gun” on the ground that Kirkland is not a firearms expert. The

circuit court overruled the objection stating that the State had not qualified Kirkland as an

expert witness and that he was testifying to his common knowledge about magazines. The

circuit court stated that it did not hear any expert testimony because Kirkland gave his

reasons for why he believed what he did about the gun and the magazines. Davis did not

make a continuing objection to Kirkland’s testimony, and Kirkland later testified without

objection that the gun fired 9 mm ammunition, it was a semiautomatic pistol, and the user

had to chamber a round in order to shoot it.

Deborah Britton, the state crime lab’s forensics examiner, testified that the bullet

removed from Paxton’s body was a damaged copper full-metal-jacket bullet and that the

cartridge casing found at the scene of the crime was an expended 9mm Luger-caliber

3 cartridge casing. Both were from the .38-caliber class family, and both could have come

from a 9mm gun. She explained how the safety mechanism on a pistol works and that, when

engaged, it will keep the gun from firing. She also testified that it takes pounds of finger

pressure to pull a trigger and fire a gun.

The circuit court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder,

and manslaughter. Davis was convicted of first-degree murder. He now appeals contending

that the circuit court made two erroneous evidentiary rulings during the trial that merit

reversal. First, he contends the circuit court erred by admitting the video of him in Walmart

with a gun earlier that day. Second, he contends that the circuit court erred by admitting

testimony of a police officer regarding the two magazines and their use with Taurus firearms

without qualifying the officer as an expert witness.

Davis contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence

the video Burns made of Davis with his gun in Walmart the same day Davis shot Paxton.

Davis objected that it was evidence of a prior bad act pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Arkansas

Rules of Evidence that should not have been admitted.

Rule 404(b) provides that

[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

From the bench, the court reasoned that

[a]ll the Court knows at this point in time is that a gun was used. And I don’t know what the testimony of this witness is going to be, but I am assuming that this was the gun that was used in the commission of the offense. So it would be relevant for that reason, to show he had the weapon used on that particular day, res gestae to this crime.

4 Rulings on the admissibility of evidence generally are matters within a circuit court’s

discretion, and those rulings are not disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of

that discretion and prejudice. Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 93, 161 S.W.3d 785, 786 (2004).

Abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Markelle Davis v. State of Arkansas
2025 Ark. App. 237 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2025)
Johnny Lee Nichols v. State of Arkansas
2023 Ark. App. 12 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 Ark. App. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markelle-demetrice-davis-v-state-of-arkansas-arkctapp-2021.