Background
Deperryon Deanthonydesean King was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, and four counts of felony-firearm. The charges arose from a fatal shooting at a June 2022 Father’s Day block party. Monte Wilson, who was intoxicated and had argued with other attendees, was struck by a bullet that passed through his arm and entered his chest.
King pursued alternative theories that the prosecution had not proved he shot Wilson and that any shooting was justified by self-defense. The Court of Appeals remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call Deshawn Reed-Davenport and Emilio Zamora, who claimed Wilson was aggressive and fired first. After the hearing, the trial court found those witnesses not credible and denied King’s motion for a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that King failed to establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to investigate or call Reed-Davenport and Zamora. Much of their proposed testimony was cumulative of trial evidence showing that Wilson was intoxicated, had threatened others, may have possessed a gun, and may have fired shots. The witnesses’ new testimony that Wilson fired first was undermined by credibility concerns, inconsistencies, their communications with King while incarcerated, and evidence suggesting coordination. The trial court’s credibility findings were not clearly erroneous.
The court also rejected King’s argument that counsel conceded guilt during closing argument. Read in context, counsel presented alternative defenses of insufficient evidence and self-defense without admitting that King shot Wilson. Finally, counsel was not ineffective for failing to object when forensic pathologist Dr. David Moons characterized the manner of death as homicide. The court concluded that Dr. Moons was qualified to give that opinion and used “homicide” as a forensic term meaning death caused by another person, not as a legal conclusion that King committed a crime.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to call defense witnesses does not warrant a new trial absent a reasonable probability that their testimony would have changed the verdict.
- A closing argument presenting insufficient-evidence and self-defense theories in the alternative is not necessarily a concession of guilt.
- A qualified forensic pathologist may describe a death as a homicide when explaining the medical classification of the manner of death.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial prejudice showing required for ineffective-assistance claims based on uncalled witnesses, particularly when their testimony duplicates evidence already presented or the trial court finds them not credible after an evidentiary hearing.
It also distinguishes a forensic expert’s medical use of “homicide” from a legal determination of criminal responsibility, confirming that counsel is not ineffective for declining to make a futile objection to admissible expert testimony.