State of Tennessee v. Gregory Keontae Lyons

06/29/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 12, 2026 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GREGORY KEONTAE LYONS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. 86811-B James A. Turner, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2025-00230-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________ Defendant, Gregory Keontae Lyons, appeals from his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder; employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony; attempted sale of a Schedule I controlled substance; and conspiracy to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, for which he is serving an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude references to his age; and that the trial court failed to properly consider Defendant’s age as a mitigating factor in sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which TIMOTHY L. EASTER and STEVEN W. SWORD, JJ., joined. Bradley A. Stephens (on appeal) and R. Wilford Fraley, III (at trial), Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Gregory Keontae Lyons. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; G. Kirby May, Assistant Attorney General; Jennings H. Jones, District Attorney General; and Matthew W. Westmoreland and Trevor H. Lynch, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION I. Factual and Procedural Background This case arises from the September 27, 2020 shooting death of Javarius Malone (“the victim”) during a heroin transaction. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time. The February 2022 term of the Rutherford County Grand Jury issued an indictment charging Defendant and Corey Munsell Lillard, Jr.1 (“co-defendant Lillard”), with first- degree premeditated murder; employing a firearm during the attempted commission of a dangerous felony, to wit: the sale of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance; attempted sale of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance; and conspiracy to sell heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-103, -13-202, -17-417, -17-1324. Co-defendant Lillard was tried separately. A. Pretrial motion in limine The State filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking to prohibit defense counsel from referring to Defendant as a “child, kid, boy, minor, juvenile” or mentioning his Department of Children’s Services (DCS) supervision, juvenile court involvement, or high school status. The State argued that Defendant’s age was irrelevant under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 and would serve only to elicit jury sympathy. Defense counsel responded that Defendant’s age could cut against him because the jury “might” be more upset that the alleged act was committed by a juvenile. Counsel added, I don’t know how this plays out or how I would bring this into the case. But the fact is he was under the age of 18. And I might refer to him as a young man, a kid . . . Maybe juvenile. But I don’t see that that has any prejudicial effect on the jury. Defense counsel also distinguished the State’s cited case. The trial court found Defendant’s minor status irrelevant and potentially distracting. It granted the motion as to “child, boy, minor, [and] juvenile[,]” but allowed “young man” and indicated it would be less strict about “kid.” B. Trial Murfreesboro Police Department (MPD) Emergency Communications dispatcher Tiffany Matthews testified that, at 11:21 p.m. on September 27, 2020, she received a call from a woman at an address on Gunnerson Avenue reporting a shooting. 1 The record reflects that co-defendant Lillard pleaded guilty in 2023 to facilitation of first-degree murder and attempted possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, for which he received an effective twenty-year sentence. -2-  The recorded 911 call was entered as an exhibit and played for the jury. In the recording, a woman who identified herself as “Sherry” recounted that she “heard a sound” outside her home, opened her door, heard someone say, “I’ve been shot, help,” and found a man lying on the ground. Sherry stated that the man had been shot in the chest and that he was still breathing. MPD Sergeant Jonathan Pope and Officer Trae Smalley testified that they separately responded to the shooting call on Gunnerson Avenue and that, when they arrived, they saw the victim lying on his back in a cul-de-sac near several small duplexes. Sergeant Pope stated that the victim had a gunshot wound to the chest with no exit wound, that he was “gasping for air pretty hard,” and that his eyes were “discolored.” After clearing the area, Sergeant Pope attended to the victim, and Officer Smalley took initial photographs of the scene. The photographs were received as exhibits and showed Sergeant Pope kneeling over the victim and pressing a grey item of clothing onto his chest. Some blood was visible on the clothing and the pavement. A bicycle was on the ground just behind Sergeant Pope. MPD crime scene investigator Katie Iyoob testified that she processed the shooting scene. She identified a diagram of the scene and several photographs, which were received as exhibits and reflected that, in addition to the bicycle, a white lighter, red flashlight, and gray sweatshirt were in the area immediately around the victim. A cartridge casing was slightly further away to the victim’s left, and a small bundle of folded money was to the victim’s right. Officer Iyoob stated that the money consisted of two twenty-dollar bills and two five-dollar bills. Officer Iyoob said that she collected DNA swabs from the bicycle’s handlebars and dusted them for fingerprints; she noted that the fingerprint testing was inconclusive. She also collected DNA swabs from the white lighter. MPD crime scene investigator Regan Edwards testified that she collected evidence from co-defendant Lillard’s house pursuant to a search warrant. Officer Edwards identified a photograph she took of a .357 caliber Glock magazine found in the kitchen. Officer Edwards dusted the magazine for fingerprints, but none were found. Officer Edwards collected DNA swabs from the magazine. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) Special Agent Savannah Houk, an expert in firearm and toolmark examination, testified that she tested the shell casing, bullet, and bullet fragments collected in this case. She stated that the bullet was a “.38 caliber class” that could have been manufactured by several companies, including Glock, Kahr, Heckler & Koch, and others. Agent Houk said that Glock was the most common brand. Agent Houk stated that the .38 caliber class included “9 millimeter, a .357 SIG, .38 Special, a .357 Magnum, [and] .380 Auto.” Agent Houk noted that the bullet fragments were of no comparison value and that no firearm was submitted to her for comparison. -3-  Agent Houk testified that the “.357 SIG” cartridge casing collected at the shooting scene had “class characteristics . . . consistent with that of older model Glock style firearms.” Agent Houk stated that it was possible for her to test a gun magazine; she noted, though, “with only one cartridge case, it would be kind of hard to establish reproducibility of a magazine.” Agent Houk said that most magazines are designed for a specific caliber of bullet and firearm and that multiple manufacturers made Glock magazines. On cross-examination, Agent Houk acknowledged that she could not identify with certainty which brand of firearm fired the bullet recovered from the victim. Matthew Davenport testified that, in August 2020, he had recently moved to Tennessee from Massachusetts and worked as a maintenance supervisor at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), where he was the victim’s manager. Mr. Davenport said that his shift began at 10:00 p.m. and that the victim’s shift began at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Davenport stated that, three days after he met the victim, he noticed the victim’s “nodding off in the elevator” and asked the victim if he could supply Mr. Davenport with drugs. Mr. Davenport said that he gave the victim money and that the victim would leave campus, buy heroin, and bring it back to him. Mr. Davenport testified that, on September 27, 2020, he texted the victim throughout the day and that, before work, he gave the victim fifty dollars with which to buy drugs—two twenty-dollar bills and two five-dollar bills. Mr. Davenport noted that he and the victim reported to work as usual, that the victim received a phone call, and that, around 11:15 p.m., he realized the victim had left. Mr. Davenport did not see the victim again, and he later learned that the victim had been shot. Mr. Davenport spoke to the police and told them that he “was probably responsible” because the victim had been buying drugs for him. On cross-examination, Mr. Davenport testified that he recognized that the victim was intoxicated at work because of his own experience with drugs. Mr. Davenport stated that he paid the victim to obtain heroin for him five or six times in the three weeks they knew one another. Mr. Davenport did not know from where the victim obtained it. Dr. Emily Dennison, an expert in forensic pathology, testified that she performed the victim’s autopsy. She determined that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest and that the manner of death was homicide. Dr. Dennison stated that the bullet entered the right side of the chest between two of the victim’s ribs; passed through the right lung, another rib, and the thoracic vertebrae; and severed the spinal cord. Dr. Dennison noted that forty percent of the victim’s blood volume was in his chest cavity. She recovered a bullet from his back and bullet fragments from his spine. -4-  Dr. Dennison testified that the spinal cord injury was “immediately incapacitating,” although she noted that the victim survived until after he reached the hospital. She agreed that additional, minor injuries, like a knee abrasion and a small laceration to the right ear, could have occurred when the victim fell. On cross-examination, Dr. Dennison testified that the victim’s toxicology testing was positive for morphine; “6-monoacetylmorphine,” an active metabolite of morphine, “[m]ost notably . . . seen in heroin[] use”; fentanyl; and norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl. Dr. Dennison stated that she could not determine when the victim suffered the minor injuries; she noted, though, that they were “acute” and “fairly recent.” She stated that some of the injuries and rib fractures could possibly have resulted from CPR. Dr. Dennison said that no soot or stippling was present around the gunshot entry wound, which indicated that the shot was fired from more than two feet away or that an object was between the victim and the gun. TBI Special Agent Carrie Schmittgen, an expert in forensic biology, testified that she performed DNA testing on swabs from the white lighter, two bicycles, and a gun magazine and compared them to DNA samples collected from the victim, Defendant, and co-defendant Lillard. Swabs from the “lighter wheel” contained at least three profiles; the major contributor matched the victim. Swabs from the right and left handlebars of the first bicycle contained four profiles, at least one of which was male; the major contributor was Defendant, and the “probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual who would be included as a contributor to this DNA profile is one in a number greater than the current world populations for the African American, Caucasian, and southwestern Hispanic populations[.]” The swabs from the second bicycle did not contain a sufficient amount of DNA to develop a profile. The swab from the gun magazine contained at least three DNA profiles, including at least one male; the major contributor profile was “an unknown female,” and the minor contributors were inconclusive for comparison. The parties entered the following stipulation: [H]ad Ms. Lisa Earls been called to testify, Ms. Earls would have testified that as a result of an order, [Defendant] was on a global positioning system, GPS monitoring. This monitoring was for a period that included the month of September 2020. Ms. Earls would further testify that in the ordinary course of business, these GPS records were maintained by Securus Monitoring Solutions. Ms. Earls would testify that she obtained these records from Securus along with a verification of authenticity from custodian of the records[.] MPD Detective Cody Thomas, an expert in digital forensics and forensic mapping, testified that he examined cell phone records from the victim, co-defendant Lillard, and -5- Defendant; location data from Defendant’s GPS ankle monitor; and surveillance recordings from the area around the shooting scene, which included MTSU buildings, an apartment complex, and Gentleman Jim’s bar on Gunnerson Avenue. Detective Thomas testified that one of co-defendant Lillard’s known nicknames was “CM Youngin” and that co-defendant Lillard’s telephone number was labeled as “Youngin” in Defendant’s cell phone and “Younging CM” in the victim’s cell phone. Detective Thomas testified that he used a computer program to make maps documenting Defendant’s and co-defendant Lillard’s locations throughout the evening and images recreating text message conversations using a familiar “chat bubbles” format. The maps and text message images were entered as exhibits and shown to the jury. The exhibits established the following events on the night of the shooting: Defendant’s ankle monitor was at his home from 9:51 p.m. until 9:57 p.m. At 9:58 p.m., co-defendant Lillard’s cell phone “pinged” the north side of a cell tower that was close to the shooting scene; co-defendant Lillard and Defendant both lived north of the cell tower on different streets. Beginning at 10:03 p.m., Defendant and co-defendant Lillard had a text message conversation in which Defendant asked co-defendant Lillard if he was at home and stated that he was about to come to co-defendant Lillard’s house. Co-defendant Lillard responded, “Hurry because I’ve got something going.” Defendant’s ankle monitor left his house at 10:04 p.m. and traveled to co-defendant Lillard’s house, arriving at 10:09 p.m. At 10:10 p.m., Defendant texted co-defendant Lillard asking him to open the door. Defendant’s ankle monitor remained at co-defendant Lillard’s house until 11:04 p.m. At 10:38 p.m., the victim texted co-defendant Lillard, and the following conversation occurred: Author Recipient Text2 The victim Co-defendant Lillard Yo. You good? Co-defendant Lillard The victim Yeah The victim Co-defendant Lillard What color is it? 2 The original text messages contained abbreviations, slang, and spelling and typographical errors such that they were difficult to read. We have chosen to use the version of the messages in the trial transcript when Detective Thomas read them aloud. Our review of the record reflects that he accurately articulated the messages’ meaning. -6-  The victim Co-defendant Lillard I got bite3 for half and if it’s not some BS . . . they spend 100 right after but how long it take you to get here? I got [to] be back at work at 11:00 Co-defendant Lillard The victim They need it now? The victim Co-defendant Lillard Yeah Co-defendant Lillard The victim They down there . . . right now with the cash[?] The victim Co-defendant Lillard Yeah Co-defendant Lillard The victim Because I ain’t got time to be playing Co-defendant Lillard The victim I need 45 for the half .6 for 50 The victim Co-defendant Lillard They got 50 and I don’t got time to be waiting on some s--t that ain’t dope Co-defendant Lillard The victim Talk in code Co-defendant Lillard The victim Why you saying them kind of words on text messages? The victim Co-defendant Lillard You just said .5, .6. You ain’t talking in code. Co-defendant Lillard The victim That ain’t saying nothing. Co-defendant Lillard The victim The word “dope” is popular, Fam Co-defendant Lillard The victim You can’t be saying that s--t through text The victim Co-defendant Lillard I’m the one [who] said dope and I know it’s popular. You [are] the one [who] said other stuff Co-defendant Lillard The victim All right. I’m on the way. You want it[?] The victim Co-defendant Lillard Yeah. Don’t bring no bulls--t Co-defendant Lillard The victim All right. I’m fixing to be there. The victim Co-defendant Lillard Ok Co-defendant Lillard The victim [O]n the way. 3 Detective Thomas testified that “bite” is slang meaning, “I’m acting as a middleman. I’ve got somebody else I’m purchasing drugs for.” -7-  The victim Co-defendant Lillard Ok A surveillance camera near the MTSU maintenance building showed the victim walking around a corner and down the street toward MTSU at 10:42 p.m. The victim was using his cell phone as he walked. From 11:04 p.m. until 11:07 p.m., Defendant’s ankle monitor traveled from co- defendant Lillard’s house, down Gunnerson Avenue, and across an apartment complex parking lot before arriving at the shooting scene. Surveillance cameras from the apartment complex showed two people traveling across the complex on bicycles between 11:04 p.m. and 11:05 p.m.; one person wore a dark-colored hoodie with the hood raised, and the other wore a lighter-colored hoodie. Detective Thomas identified the person wearing the lighter- colored hoodie as Defendant. At 11:07 p.m., co-defendant Lillard called the victim; the call lasted one minute, eighteen seconds, and co-defendant Lillard’s phone pinged the southwest side of the cell tower, which included the area of the shooting scene. Defendant’s ankle monitor traveled past the shooting scene and down Gunnerson Avenue between 11:09 p.m. and 11:12 p.m. It traveled back up Gunnerson Avenue between 11:12 and 11:14 p.m. Surveillance cameras at MTSU and Gentleman Jim’s bar showed two people on bicycles passing the bar, looping around at a stop sign, and pedaling back up Gunnerson Avenue. Co-defendant Lillard and the victim exchanged more text messages beginning at 11:10 p.m. Co-defendant Lillard asked the victim if he was coming; the victim responded with his location and stated that he was hurrying. The MTSU surveillance camera showed the victim jogging away from campus on foot at 11:12 p.m. Another surveillance camera near Gentleman Jim’s bar showed the victim walking through the area toward the shooting scene at 11:13 p.m. Defendant’s ankle monitor was at the shooting scene from 11:14 p.m. until 11:19 p.m. At 11:16 p.m., the victim called co-defendant Lillard for fifteen seconds. Co- defendant Lillard’s cell phone again pinged the southwest side of the cell tower. At 11:19 p.m., Defendant’s ankle monitor traveled north from the shooting scene to a house on Middleborough Court. Detective Thomas stated that the ankle monitor’s location was updated once per minute and that the rate at which the ankle monitor left the shooting scene and arrived at Middleborough Court indicated that Defendant was running. The apartment complex’s surveillance cameras showed the bicyclists emerging on foot -8- from the woodline and running in the direction from which they traveled earlier. Detective Thomas stated that the Middleborough Court home belonged to Jackie Brinkley, who was a relative of Defendant or co-defendant Lillard. Detective Thomas testified that the lack of electronic communication between Defendant and co-defendant Lillard during the evening indicated that they were likely together. He stated that Defendant remained at Ms. Brinkley’s house until 12:30 a.m. and returned to his house at 12:37 a.m. Co-defendant Lillard’s cell phone made a call at 11:40 p.m. and pinged the north side of the cell tower, which included both the Middleborough Court house and co-defendant Lillard’s house. Detective Thomas testified that, after the shooting, the police performed a tracking search with a police dog, which took them to Middleborough Court; he noted that the street was “littered with police cars for quite a while[.]” Beginning at 12:33 a.m., Defendant and co-defendant Lillard had a text message conversation referencing the police presence in the area. Defendant noted that officers were not watching “Jackie[’s] house” or “where [Defendant and co-defendant Lillard] were.” Defendant remarked that officers were “watching toward the entrance but maybe they [were] trying to do that to throw us off.” Co-defendant Lillard warned Defendant, “Don’t text nothing about it.” Defendant told co-defendant Lillard that he was “up like a MF,” that he was going to get marijuana from his neighbor, and that he would need “ski” 4 to sleep. At 3:10 a.m., co-defendant Lillard called Defendant for ten seconds. At 3:11 a.m., their text conversation continued as follows: Author Recipient Text Defendant Co-defendant Lillard You straight Defendant Co-defendant Lillard ? Co-defendant Lillard Defendant Nvm [“never mind”] Co-defendant Lillard Defendant Love u, Cuz. GN [“good night”] Co-defendant Lillard Defendant Just know this s--t 4E [“forever”]. Never [bend], break, or fold. Defendant Co-defendant Lillard [“Love” react to message] 4 Detective Thomas testified that “ski,” spelled “skee” in the original text message, was a slang term meaning “drugs in some capacity.” -9-  Detective Thomas testified that he interviewed Defendant at the police department on October 3, 2020. Defendant stated that the victim, whom he called “Var” or “Vari,” was his cousin. Defendant repeatedly asserted that he had nothing to do with the shooting and that he would not hurt a family member. When confronted with his ankle monitor data, Defendant acknowledged that he was present at the shooting scene and later added that he was with another cousin he initially refused to name but eventually identified as “Corey.” Defendant stated that co-defendant Lillard had no conflict with the victim. Defendant said that he had known co-defendant Lillard his entire life and that the only reason Defendant was speaking to the police was to protect co-defendant Lillard and himself. Defendant stated that he and co-defendant Lillard were in the area of the shooting to buy marijuana from a cousin who lived nearby, whom he eventually identified as “Deebo” or “De’Brian.” He stated that De’Brian lived in an apartment behind Tom Pugh’s house; the victim and a bicycle were found in front of Mr. Pugh’s house. When Detective Thomas asked Defendant for De’Brian’s contact information, Defendant interjected that, after he left the shooting scene, he went to a female cousin’s house on Middleborough Court to have his hair done and that she would vouch for him. Detective Thomas commented that he was sure “Jackie” would lie to him, and Defendant responded that the cousin was not Jackie. An officer later entered and drew a diagram of the area, and Defendant pointed out and described where De’Brian lived. Defendant identified his bicycle in a still photograph from the apartment complex surveillance recordings. When shown a spreadsheet with the victim’s text messages, Defendant denied knowing anything about them. Defendant denied that his or co- defendant Lillard’s DNA would be found on the shell casing from the shooting scene. Defendant recited several versions of what happened that evening. Defendant first stated that he only heard gunshots and ran away. Defendant then averred that he was in the area to get marijuana and that, after obtaining it, he heard someone say, “Come here.” Defendant said that he walked toward the unknown person and heard gunshots. Defendant denied knowing who the shooter was. Defendant stated that he fled the scene because he did not want to get shot. Defendant stated that both he and co-defendant Lillard dropped their bicycles and ran. Defendant denied knowing the victim was there. Defendant said that he went to a cousin’s house and that Defendant’s brother picked him up there. Defendant next asserted that he came out of an unidentified building after buying marijuana; that he heard someone say, “Hey, come here real quick”; that he asked the person what was up; that he could not see because it was dark; that he heard “pow pow - 10 - pow”; and that he saw two people. Defendant maintained that neither he nor co-defendant Lillard shot the victim. Defendant added that co-defendant Lillard went upstairs with him to get marijuana and that, upon exiting, a person with a black jacket and a black hat beckoned to them. Upon further questioning, Defendant said that the person’s nickname was “TQ.” Defendant said that, before going upstairs to get the marijuana, he left his bicycle in front of Mr. Pugh’s house. Defendant denied knowing about co-defendant Lillard’s arrangement to sell the victim heroin. When asked why Mr. Pugh told the police that Defendant and co-defendant Lillard killed the victim, Defendant responded that he had not spoken with Mr. Pugh in two months. Defendant repeated that he did not see the victim that night. Defendant said that he and co-defendant Lillard left their bicycles in the “apartments back there.” Defendant stated that he had lied about De’Brian’s address and that he did not live there anymore. Defendant said, though, that he still often met De’Brian behind the building where he used to live. Defendant stated that, on the night of the shooting, he went behind the building, saw that De’Brian was not there, and called him on Snapchat. According to Defendant, De’Brian said that he was nearby and would come to him. Defendant stated that he saw the victim talking to TQ, who walked away. Defendant said that he greeted the victim and that they conversed briefly before “he” walked out and shot the victim. Defendant agreed that he saw the victim get shot. Defendant maintained that co-defendant Lillard was with him the entire time. When asked why he did not contact the police in the week between the shooting and Defendant’s arrest, Defendant did not directly answer but maintained that he was telling Detective Thomas everything he knew and was being truthful. Detective Thomas told Defendant that co-defendant Lillard had denied being with him on the night of the shooting and told the police that he had been at home all night. Defendant maintained that he had nothing to do “with any guns” and denied that he or co- defendant Lillard killed the victim. Defendant repeated that he knew nothing about a heroin sale. Detective Thomas testified that the surveillance recordings showed that Defendant’s bicycle had one reflector on the front wheel; the second bicycle had reflectors on both wheels. Detective Thomas stated that the bicycle found near the victim had only one reflector on the front wheel and contained Defendant’s DNA. Detective Thomas said that, later in the morning on September 28, officers found a second bicycle in the woodline between the shooting scene and the apartment complex. He stated that the DNA testing of - 11 - the second bicycle was inconclusive, and he noted that it had rained by the time officers found it. Detective Thomas testified that he collected Defendant’s cell phone at the interview and, after obtaining a search warrant, performed a limited data extraction several days later. Detective Thomas said that, at 8:27 p.m. on September 28, 2020, the phone accessed a news article with the headline, “Victim of Murfreesboro Sunday Night Homicide Identified”; a screenshot of the article included one of the crime scene photographs. Detective Thomas testified that he used the cell phone number Defendant provided during the interview to search for communications between Defendant and the victim in the victim’s cell phone. Detective Thomas said that records related to voice calls were present on both Defendant’s and the victim’s cell phones; however, their text messages were only present on the victim’s phone. Detective Thomas stated that this was a “likely indicator” that the text messages had been deleted from Defendant’s phone. Detective Thomas noted that Defendant’s nickname was “K Money.” On June 1, 2020, the victim and Defendant had the following text conversation: Author Recipient Text The victim Defendant Is this K Money? Defendant The victim Yeah The victim Defendant This cousin stay[] by Tom Defendant The victim What’s up? The victim Defendant What you want for half? Defendant The victim 50 The victim Defendant All right. Hit you back in a minute Defendant The victim I’ll do 40, though The victim Defendant All right Defendant The victim Hey. Got you for fifty now. The victim Defendant Waiting on my bite, Fam On June 2, 2020, the victim reached out to Defendant by text again. The victim asked if Defendant would let him “hold [a] couple points” until he was paid on Friday. Detective Thomas testified that holding a point was slang for, “[W]ill you front me drugs without me paying you right now[?]” Defendant responded, “I’ll give you half if you can give me 50 when you get paid.” Defendant noted that he did not like “doing fronts” because - 12 - two people “got over on” him previously, and the victim assured him that he would pay. Defendant instructed the victim to come to his house and call him when he was at Defendant’s bedroom window. The conversation continued on June 3, 2020: Author Recipient Text The victim Defendant Hey, Bro. Someone is supposed to bring me that money tonight. I front it to them and I got bite tonight. Defendant The victim All right. Bet The victim Defendant Let me hold point. I owe you 60 and that’s limit Defendant The victim All right. Ho[ld] up The victim Defendant All right Defendant The victim All right. I’ll . . . let you know The victim Defendant It’s going to be a minute. Trying to get before I go over to my granny. My granddad die Defendant The victim All right. Say no more The victim Defendant Bet The victim Defendant Can you get some hard and how much G? Can I walk . . . down there and get that? On June 4, Defendant texted the victim asking if he would have the $50 for him tomorrow. The victim stated that a man was bringing it to him when he got off work. On June 5, the victim texted Defendant, “He get at 6:00. Soon as he come, I’m going to call you.” The next communication occurred on the evening of June 12, when the victim texted Defendant, “Bro, ain’t forgot about you. I get paid Wednesday and I got you.” Over the following weeks, the text conversation continued: Date Author Recipient Text June 14 Defendant The victim Have you talked to Tom? June 17 The victim Defendant You up, Bro? - 13 -  Defendant The victim Yeah June 30 Defendant The victim Hey. What’s up with that? July 1 The victim Defendant Where you at? Defendant The victim Zaxby’s. Fixing to go to the crib when I leave here. The victim Defendant All right. I was in the hospital yesterday[,] why I didn’t answer but I got to do some stuff when I get home. I’m going to text you. If not tonight, it be tomorrow when I get off. I get it though Defendant The victim All right, Fam July 10 Defendant The victim This K Money. Can I come get that today? So when you want to come pick that bread [up] The victim Defendant I got you. I couldn’t answer. My boss was around me. I get off at 6:00 p.m. but give me time to get home and make sure you answer phone because I be falling asleep soon as I get home Detective Thomas testified that at 8:26 p.m. and 8:36 p.m. on July 11, Defendant called the victim, but he did not answer. About an hour later, Defendant texted the victim, “Hey. What’s up with that?” The victim did not answer. On July 12, Defendant called the victim twice, but he did not answer. On July 22, the victim called Defendant three times in a two-minute timespan, and the calls lasted less than one minute each. On August 20, Defendant called the victim twice, but he did not answer. Immediately after, Defendant texted the victim, saying that he needed the money that day because his mother was stressed. The victim did not answer. On August 21, Defendant called the victim twice, but he did not answer. On August 22, Defendant called the victim, but he did not answer. Defendant sent a text message reading, “Say no more.” On August 23, the victim texted Defendant, stating, “I get paid Friday. Call me or I call you when I get off.” Defendant responded, “All right. Call me.” On August 27, Defendant texted the victim, “Don’t forget to hit me up tomorrow when you get off. I [am] going to be at your crib if you forget to remind you.” On August 28, Defendant texted the victim, asking what time he got off work “so I can come get them 50[.]” Defendant called the victim three times, but he did not answer. Immediately after, Defendant texted the victim, “Hey, Homie. Me and CM fixing to come see about that. You need to call me ASAP.” The victim responded five minutes later, “I told you I was at - 14 - work and you can m[i]ss me with that side-talk s--t and homie don’t [no] n---a scare me. I told you when I get off I call you.” Defendant responded, “Ain’t no n---a trying to scare you . . . . What time you get off, though, so I can [be] ready?” Later that evening, Defendant called the victim, but he did not answer. On August 29, Defendant called the victim twice, but he did not answer. Defendant texted the victim, “What’s up with you? At work or something?” Defendant sent a second text, stating, “Say no more. It’s up there.” He then sent a coffin emoji. On September 25, 2020, Defendant texted a person named Davion Gates, stating “Hey, fam, I got you 350 for the .357.” Detective Thomas stated that, in his experience, this referred to having $350 to purchase a .357 caliber firearm. Detective Thomas said that the victim was killed using a .357 SIG. On cross-examination, Detective Thomas acknowledged that he could not conclusively say that the victim was killed using a .357 SIG, but he maintained that the evidence was consistent with such a conclusion. He stated that Mr. Gates did not respond to the text message and that his investigation did not reveal whether Defendant went through with the purchase. Detective Thomas agreed that the .357 Glock magazine was recovered in co-defendant Lillard’s kitchen. Detective Thomas noted that police attempted to speak to Mr. Gates about this case but that he was uncooperative; at the time of trial, Mr. Gates had been shot and killed. Detective Thomas testified that, after Defendant sent the coffin emoji to the victim, they had no further communication by cell phone. Detective Thomas denied that the emoji could be interpreted as an instruction not to contact Defendant again because the victim was “dead to [Defendant.]” Detective Thomas testified that the investigation revealed that the victim also owed another person $50 or $60, but this person was hospitalized at the time of the shooting. Detective Thomas agreed that the victim had a “serious drug problem” and that co- defendant Lillard was known to the police before the shooting. When asked about the scope of data that Detective Thomas was able to extract from Defendant’s cell phone, he testified that, because they did not have the passcode, he could obtain most data except for some deleted files, including Defendant’s copy of the text messages