Background
On the evening of April 3, 2019, Keyondre Preston shot and killed Shelvis Hillman at the home of Hillman’s uncle, Charlie Hillman, in Newton County, Georgia. The killing followed an earlier confrontation that same day at the home of Hillman’s father, Stanley Hillman, where Preston had discharged a firearm at a dog and exchanged hostile words with Hillman, telling him he did not know “who the f**k” he was dealing with. Preston later told his uncle, Deandre Arnold, that someone had “tried him” — meaning he felt disrespected — and that evening the group drove to Charlie’s house. Once inside, Preston shot Hillman point-blank in the kitchen, then robbed Hillman, Charlie, and Charlie’s roommate Curtis Kimbrough at gunpoint before fleeing.
A Newton County grand jury re-indicted Preston in July 2021 on charges including malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery (three counts), aggravated assault, first-degree burglary, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. A jury convicted Preston on all counts except one felony-murder count, and the trial court sentenced him to life without parole on the malice murder conviction, with additional concurrent and consecutive terms. Preston’s motion for new trial was denied in October 2024, and he appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
On appeal, Preston raised three claims: (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to support his convictions for malice murder, armed robbery, and burglary; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Rule 404(b) other-act evidence of two 2018 armed robberies; and (3) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on justification and related defenses.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed on all three grounds. On sufficiency, the court held that the evidence — including eyewitness testimony placing Preston in the kitchen holding a gun immediately after the shooting, Letonya Arnold’s account of hearing Preston demand “give me what you got” before a gunshot, Arnold’s contemporaneous statement to police that his nephew “Keyondre” committed the shooting, photo lineup identifications by multiple witnesses, and ballistic evidence linking a casing from the murder scene to a casing from the earlier dog-shooting incident — was constitutionally sufficient for a rational jury to find Preston guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder, armed robbery, and first-degree burglary. The court reiterated that resolving conflicts in witness testimony and assessing credibility are exclusively jury functions.
On the Rule 404(b) issue, the court held that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of two 2018 armed robberies Preston committed against Ilyas Numan and Stefan Ellington. Because Preston entered a not-guilty plea and pursued alternative defenses — identity (he was not present) and self-defense — intent remained a material issue. The 2018 incidents were sufficiently similar to the charged crimes (armed robberies at gunpoint against strangers, with shots fired), temporally proximate (within one year), and the State had significant prosecutorial need for the evidence given conflicting trial testimony and the alternative defenses raised through cross-examination. Any unfair prejudice was further mitigated by the trial court’s limiting instruction directing the jury to consider the evidence only on the question of intent.
The court also rejected Preston’s challenge to the denial of a justification instruction, finding that the evidence did not raise a genuine claim of self-defense sufficient to require the charge. All convictions were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who pleads not guilty and does not affirmatively remove intent as an issue opens the door to Rule 404(b) other-act evidence offered to prove intent, including prior armed robberies with similar methods.
- Factual conflicts among witnesses — including a witness who changed his account between pretrial interviews and trial — do not render evidence constitutionally insufficient; credibility determinations belong to the jury.
- Ballistic evidence linking a firearm used at a separate incident earlier in the same day to the murder scene was properly considered by the jury and supported the conviction.
- A defendant who remains in a victim’s home and then assaults and robs the occupants can be convicted of first-degree burglary on a theory of remaining without authority, even if initial entry was not clearly unauthorized.
- A trial court’s limiting instruction is a relevant factor in weighing whether the prejudicial effect of other-act evidence substantially outweighs its probative value under Rule 403.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Georgia’s broad application of Rule 404(b) as a rule of inclusion. Prosecutors facing defendants who pursue inconsistent or alternative defenses through cross-examination — without the defendant ever taking the stand — can use prior similar crimes to establish intent, so long as the acts are sufficiently similar, temporally proximate, and the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Defense counsel should be alert to how aggressive cross-examination strategies may inadvertently strengthen the State’s case for admitting prior-act evidence.
The decision also illustrates how circumstantial and testimonial evidence, even when conflicting or from witnesses with potential credibility issues (here, cooperating co-defendants granted immunity), can collectively satisfy the constitutional sufficiency standard. Courts will not re-weigh witness credibility on appeal, making the trial record — and the completeness of the evidence presented to the jury — dispositive.