In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: August 13, 2024

S24A0574. NUNNALLY v. THE STATE.

 COLVIN, Justice.

Appellant Malik Nunnally appeals his convictions for malice 

murder and other crimes related to the death of Maya Mitchell.1 On 

1 Mitchell died on December 31, 2018. On July 30, 2019, a DeKalb County 

grand jury charged Appellant with malice murder (Count 1), felony murder

(Count 2), armed robbery (Count 3), aggravated assault (Count 4), possession 

of a firearm by a first offender probationer (Count 5), and possession of a 

firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 6). 

A jury trial was held from August 26, 2021, through September 2, 2021.

At trial, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for directed verdict as to 

Count 3. The jury found Appellant guilty of the remaining counts (Counts 1-2, 

4-5). On September 2, 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison 

for malice murder, five years in prison concurrent for possession of a firearm 

by a first offender probationer, and five years in prison consecutive for 

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The felony-murder 

count was vacated by operation of law, and the aggravated-assault count 

merged into the malice-murder count for sentencing purposes. See Favors v. 

State, 296 Ga. 842, 847-848 (5) (770 SE2d 855) (2015).

Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial and amended it through 

new counsel on October 6, 2023. Following a hearing on October 30, 2023, the 

trial court denied Appellant’s amended motion for new trial on December 8, 

2023.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court on December 20, 
2

appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence was constitutionally 

and statutorily insufficient to support his convictions. Appellant also 

argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on party to 

a crime. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. The trial evidence showed the following. On December 30, 

2018, Mitchell spent the day at the home of her boyfriend, Xavier 

Lamar, in Decatur and left at some point in the evening to meet 

Appellant. At approximately 9:15 a.m. the following morning, a 

person walking in Glen Emerald Park discovered a body lying in a 

wooded area a few feet off the path and called 911. The body, which 

had a gunshot wound to the head, was later identified as Mitchell.

At trial, Lamar testified that he and Mitchell started dating in 

August 2018 and that she moved in with him in November 2018. He 

stated that they smoked marijuana together at his home and that 

Mitchell would often leave to buy marijuana even though Lamar 

already had marijuana for them to smoke. At first, Mitchell did not 

2023. This appeal was docketed to this Court’s April 2024 term and submitted 

for a decision on the briefs.
3

tell Lamar who her supplier was, just that she bought it from an 

area “off Bouldercrest [Road].” Eventually, however, she showed 

Lamar a television show on which her supplier was featured and 

identified a man on the show as her supplier. At trial, Lamar 

identified Appellant as the man he had previously seen on the show.

Lamar testified that on the evening of December 30, 2018, 

“[Mitchell and I were] just chilling in the bed, just watching TV, 

watching movies and stuff.” According to Lamar, Mitchell was on 

her phone texting and calling throughout the evening and left his 

home at some point between 10:00 p.m. and midnight to meet 

Appellant.2 Lamar stated that “she said she’d be right back,” and

that when she left his house, she was wearing a sweatshirt, gray 

sweatpants, and slippers. On redirect examination, Lamar admitted 

that he suspected Mitchell was cheating on him.

Appellant’s girlfriend, Jazmin McClendon, testified that she 

2 On direct and cross-examination, Lamar conceded that he previously 

told investigators that Mitchell left his home around 2:00 a.m. on December 

31, 2018. Notwithstanding his prior statement, Lamar confirmed at trial that 

Mitchell left between 10:00 p.m. and midnight. 
4

and Appellant started dating in August 2018 and that Appellant did 

not have a car or a job. McClendon also testified that she had two 

cell phones, one with a phone number ending in –2170 that she gave 

Appellant in November 2018 for him to use, and the other ending in 

–2761, which she used. McClendon further confirmed that Appellant 

had possession of the phone corresponding to the –2170 phone 

number on the night of December 30, 2018. McClendon testified that 

on that night, Appellant told her that he was leaving to sell a gun 

and that he would return soon, which she believed would be no more 

than 30 minutes later. After 30 minutes passed, she called him 

multiple times, but he did not answer her calls. At some point, he 

called her back and said that he would be home soon. However, at 

trial, McClendon testified that she could not recall when she next 

saw Appellant; instead, she could only recall that she met Appellant 

to retrieve her phone on or before January 7, 2019, when she was 

questioned by police.

Mitchell’s parents testified that they tried to contact Mitchell 

on December 31, 2018, but could not reach her. Becoming concerned, 
5

Mitchell’s mother used her tablet, which was synced with Mitchell’s 

cell phone, to locate Mitchell. Her tablet placed Mitchell’s cell phone 

near a dumpster at a gas station on Gresham Road. A picture of the 

tablet displaying the location of Mitchell’s cell phone was entered 

into evidence. Mitchell’s mother testified that she and her husband 

drove to the gas station but did not find Mitchell’s phone there.

Mitchell’s mother testified that because her tablet was synced 

with Mitchell’s phone, she could read the text messages on Mitchell’s 

phone. Using this information, she began calling the numbers 

Mitchell’s phone had recently texted. These numbers included the 

number corresponding to the phone McClendon had provided to 

Appellant. When Mitchell’s mother called this number, a man 

answered and introduced himself as “Lee.” Mitchell’s mother 

testified that, over the course of several conversations on December 

31, the man stated that he and Mitchell were “supposed to meet” the 

previous night. “Lee” suggested they look for Mitchell at various 

locations, including two apartment complexes on Gresham Road

near the gas station where her parents had previously searched for 
6

Mitchell’s phone, a gas station where Mitchell’s car was allegedly 

seen, a grocery store, and, ultimately, Glen Emerald Park. The 

mother testified that the man also told her that a body had been 

found in Glen Emerald Park but that it was not on the news yet.

Mitchell’s father also called the number ending in –2170 and spoke 

to the man purporting to be “Lee.” The father testified that the man 

told them that he was supposed to meet Mitchell on the night of 

December 30 but that he “stood her up” and stayed at home with his 

baby’s mother. The man also told him that he sent his brother to 

meet Mitchell that night.

Photos of Mitchell’s mother’s tablet displaying text messages 

from Mitchell’s phone with the phone number ending in –2170 from 

December 2018 were entered into evidence and showed the 

following. On the evening of December 19, the –2170 number texted, 

“I’m with my brother” and then the two discussed meeting. Early in 

the morning of December 22, the –2170 number texted Mitchell’s 

phone, “[yo]u trying to come thr[ough][?]” and sent his current 

location, to which Mitchell’s phone responded, “I’m on my period 
7

tho[ugh].” On December 23, Mitchell’s phone texted the –2170 

number, asking him if he had any “gas,” to which he responded that 

he did but that he only had “seven . . . left.” 

On the evening of December 30, Mitchell’s phone and the –2170 

number texted numerous times, beginning at 10:23 p.m. and ending 

at 1:05 a.m. the following morning. The text messages from 

December 30 to December 31 primarily concerned the two meeting 

for the user of Mitchell’s phone to purchase “gas” from Appellant.

The –2170 number also asked Mitchell’s phone if they wanted to “get 

one off in the car.” After going back and forth about where to meet, 

the –2170 number told Mitchell’s phone at 10:36 p.m. to meet him 

at an address on Bouldercrest Road, which he said was near his old 

neighborhood, Paradise East Apartments. At 11:40 p.m., the –2170 

number told Mitchell’s phone to “go to the park . . . across from the 

neighborhood.” At 11:44 p.m., the –2170 number texted, “[m]y 

brother is at the park[.] He has my weed[.]”At 1:05 a.m. on December 

31, 2018, Mitchell’s phone sent the –2170 number the last known

text from her phone, which read, “I[’]m blocking [yo]ur number[,] 
8

[yo]u bitch.”

Law enforcement personnel used data from phone records for 

Mitchell’s phone and the phone ending in –2170 to generate a

“TRAS” report, which consolidated information regarding the 

contacts between the two phones into a “readable form.” This report 

was entered into evidence and shown to the jury. The detective who 

generated the report testified that “these two devices [were] 

commonly in contact with each other at the end of the night or the 

very beginning of the morning.” The report showed there were eight 

calls between Mitchell’s phone and the phone ending in –2170 on 

December 30, 2018, and that the last text message between the two 

phones was sent at 1:10 a.m. on December 31, 2018.

The detective who ran the “TRAS” report also testified that he 

located Mitchell’s abandoned car and obtained a search warrant of

the vehicle. He testified that the vehicle was found at the dead end 

of Whitehall Way. He testified that the rear bumper and rear 

passenger window of the car were damaged.

Cell-site location data of the phone ending in –2170 was also 
9

entered into evidence.3 The cellular record analyst who prepared the 

data noted that cell-site location data is not available for calls that 

are not completed. The report showed that Mitchell’s phone called 

the –2170 number twice around 10:30 p.m. on December 30 but that 

the calls were not completed. At 10:38 p.m. and 10:41 p.m., the 

–2170 number made calls to or received calls from Mitchell’s phone

from the vicinity of McClendon’s mother’s apartment on Casanova 

Street. From 11:33 p.m. on December 30 to 12:10 a.m. on December 

31, Mitchell’s phone and the –2170 number attempted to call one 

another six times, with only two of those calls being completed. The 

completed calls, made at 11:37 and 11:48 p.m. on December 30, 

placed the –2170 number in the vicinity of Glen Emerald Park and 

3 “A cell site typically consists of a set of either three or six directional 

radio antennas mounted on a tower, light post, flagpole, church steeple, or side 

of a building. Unless powered off, a cell phone continuously scans its 

environment looking for the strongest signal, which generally comes from the 

nearest cell site. Each time a phone connects to a cell site, the connection 

generates a time-stamped digital record in the service provider’s account 

records that includes the particular cell site and the specific antenna activated 

(‘sector’ information); such records are known as cell-site location [data].” 

Lofton v. State, 310 Ga. 770, 775 (2) n.3 (854 SE2d 690) (2021) (citing Carpenter 

v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 300-301 (I) (A) (138 SCt 2206, 201 LE2d 507) 

(2018)).
10

Appellant’s previous residence at Paradise East Apartments on 

Bouldercrest Road. Starting at 1:22 a.m., the –2170 number called 

various numbers, including McClendon, at 1:38 a.m. The first four 

calls, beginning at 1:22 a.m. and ending at 1:54 a.m., placed the 

caller near Glen Emerald Park and Paradise East Apartments. The 

last two calls, beginning at 2:47 a.m. and ending at 2:48 a.m., placed 

the –2170 number near McClendon’s mother’s apartment on 

Cassanova Street. The cellular record analyst testified that the 

–2170 number utilized a cell phone tower near Whitehall Way, 

where Mitchell’s car was recovered, at approximately 10:45 a.m. on 

January 1, 2019.

Photographs of the crime scene, which were admitted into 

evidence, showed that Mitchell was found bare from the waist down, 

and that her sweatpants, underwear, and slippers were nearby. An 

investigator testified that they found a .40-caliber cartridge casing 

near the body. Photographic evidence showed that the casing was 

found only a few feet away from Mitchell’s feet. Investigators were 

unable to lift any prints from the items found at the scene.
11

An investigator with the DeKalb County Police Department’s 

homicide unit testified that Glen Emerald Park is a small park

located on Bouldercrest Road “directly across” from Paradise East 

Apartments. He also stated that he received search warrants to 

perform extractions on Mitchell’s phone and the phone ending in 

–2170 but that the extraction was unsuccessful on Mitchell’s phone. 

He said that Mitchell’s phone was never located and that the photos 

of her text messages displayed on her mother’s tablet were the only 

evidence obtained on Mitchell’s phone. The extraction on the phone 

ending in –2170 revealed that Mitchell’s phone number was saved 

in the –2170 number’s contacts as “Maya wants ounce” and that the 

user of the –2170 number attempted to delete the call logs with the 

contact “Maya wants ounce.” 

The extraction also revealed the –2170 number’s internet 

search history, which showed that its user searched “breaking news 

Atlanta” and “channel 2 news breaking news murder” on the 

evening of December 31, 2018, and searched “Glen Emerald Park” 

on the evening of January 6, 2019.
12

The homicide investigator testified that he interviewed Lamar, 

McClendon, and Appellant at various times after the murder. He 

described Lamar as “very straightforward in his demeanor and his 

information that he provided.” He testified that McClendon initially 

said that she and Appellant were together on the night of December 

30, 2018, but after being presented evidence of their phone calls, 

“changed her story” and admitted that he left at some point in the 

evening. After interviewing McClendon, the investigator 

determined that Appellant was in sole possession of the phone 

number ending in –2170 “during this homicide.” And as to his 

interview with Appellant, the investigator stated that Appellant did 

not provide an alibi for December 30, 2018, and December 31, 2018.

The investigator also said that Mitchell’s car was recovered on 

Whitehall Way on January 5, 2019.

The medical examiner who conducted the autopsy on Mitchell 

testified that the bullet entered through the back right side of her 

head near her ear, passed through the brain, and exited through her 

left ear. Due to the lack of soot and stippling, he determined that the 
13

gun was “more than two to three feet away from [Mitchell]” when it 

was fired. Her only other injury was an abrasion on her right 

buttock, possibly indicating that she was dragged across a rough 

surface. The autopsy report listed her cause of death as a gunshot 

wound to the head. On cross-examination, the medical examiner 

testified that he was unable to establish Mitchell’s time of death. 

A firearms expert who worked for the Georgia Bureau of 

Investigation testified that after examining the bullet fragments, he 

concluded that the bullet fragments were from a .40[-]caliber 

weapon, consistent with being fired from a “hi[gh]-point .40[-]caliber 

pistol.”

The parties stipulated that Appellant was serving probation as 

a felony first offender at the time of the shooting.

2. On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence was 

insufficient to support his convictions as a matter of constitutional 

due process and as a matter of Georgia statutory law, see OCGA § 

24-14-6. We disagree.

(a) When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the 
14

evidence as a matter of constitutional due process, “we view the 

evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts 

and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the crimes for which 

he was convicted.” Ellington v. State, 314 Ga. 335, 339 (2) (877 SE2d 

221) (2022) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (99 

SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560 (1979)). We leave to the trier of fact “the 

resolution of conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence, credibility 

of witnesses, and reasonable inferences to be derived from the facts,” 

and we do not “reweigh the evidence.” Harris v. State, 313 Ga. 225, 

229 (2) (869 SE2d 461) (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted).

Here, the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of 

Mitchell’s murder and the other crimes of which he was convicted as 

a matter of constitutional due process. Viewed in the light most 

favorable to the verdicts, the evidence showed that Mitchell left 

Lamar’s house on the evening of December 30, 2018, to buy 

marijuana from Appellant; that a phone number ending in –2170, 

which was in Appellant’s sole possession at the time, messaged 
15

Mitchell’s phone and said to meet him at Glen Emerald Park; that 

Appellant left McClendon’s mother’s apartment that same night

carrying a gun; that Mitchell was found dead with a gunshot wound 

to the head in Glen Emerald Park the following morning; that cellsite location data placed Appellant’s phone at Glen Emerald Park 

late in the evening of December 30 and early in the morning of 

December 31; and that, during this time, Appellant was serving 

probation as a felony first offender. See Carter v. State, 305 Ga. 863, 

867 (2) (828 SE2d 317) (2019) (circumstantial evidence supporting 

murder conviction included text messages between defendant and 

the victim which showed that defendant was the last person to be 

with the victim).

The evidence also showed that after Mitchell’s death, the –2170 

number, which was in Appellant’s sole possession at the time, tried 

to delete call logs with Mitchell’s phone on the –2170 phone and

searched “breaking news Atlanta” and “channel 2 news breaking 

news murder” on the internet on December 31, 2018, and “Glen 

Emerald Park” on January 6, 2019. Further, Appellant lied to 
16

Mitchell’s parents and introduced himself as “Lee,” told them that 

he was supposed to meet Mitchell on December 30 but that he “stood 

her up,” admitted to investigators that he did not have an alibi for 

that night, and told her parents to look for Mitchell in various places, 

including Glen Emerald Park where he also said that a body had 

recently been found but that it was not on the news yet. Also, 

Mitchell’s car was found abandoned on Whitehall Way, where cellsite location data placed Appellant on January 1, 2019. See Gray v. 

State, __ Ga. __, __ (2) (__ SE2d __) (2024) (noting that “the fact of 

an accused’s . . . concealment, assumption of a false name, and 

related conduct [is] admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, 

and thus of guilt itself”).

While Appellant argues the lack of eyewitnesses make the 

evidence insufficient, this argument is without merit because 

“[a]lthough the State is required to prove its case with competent 

evidence, there is no requirement that it prove its case with any 

particular sort of evidence.” Plez v. State, 300 Ga. 505, 506 (1) (796 

SE2d 704) (2017). And as to Appellant’s argument that he did not 
17

have a motive to shoot Mitchell, “the State need not introduce 

evidence of motive in order to support a guilty verdict on the charge 

of malice murder.” Adams v. State, 317 Ga. 342, 349 (1) (893 SE2d 

85) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted). 

Taken as a whole, the evidence presented at trial authorized a 

reasonable jury to infer that Appellant and Mitchell had a sexual 

relationship and would meet late at night or early in the morning to 

engage in sexual activity; that Appellant directed Mitchell to Glen 

Emerald Park to meet; that Appellant left McClendon’s mother’s 

apartment on the evening of December 30 carrying a gun; that 

Appellant shot and killed Mitchell using that gun; and that, after 

killing Mitchell, Appellant left her car at the dead-end of Whitehall 

Way on January 1, 2019, where it was later discovered by 

investigators, conducted internet searches to see if her body had 

been discovered, attempted to delete call logs with Mitchell from his 

phone to conceal his guilt, lied about his name to Mitchell’s parents

to conceal his identity, suggested various locations to her parents to 

find Mitchell before suggesting they check Glen Emerald Park 
18

where her body was ultimately discovered, demonstrating his 

knowledge of her death, and told investigators he did not have an 

alibi for the dates in question.

Because a reasonable jury could infer each element of each of 

the crimes for which Appellant was convicted, the evidence is 

sufficient as a matter of constitutional due process. See Young v. 

State, 305 Ga. 92, 94 (1) (823 SE2d 774) (2019) (holding that the 

evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support defendant’s 

murder conviction where there were no eyewitnesses or DNA 

evidence linking defendant to the murder, but there was evidence 

that the two were in a contentious divorce and had recently 

participated in an unsuccessful mediation and that defendant fled 

the area and remained in hiding until he was arrested). 

(b) As a matter of Georgia statutory law, “[t]o warrant a 

conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only 

be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every 

other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” 

OCGA § 24-14-6. “However, not every hypothesis is reasonable, and 
19

the evidence need not exclude every conceivable inference or 

hypothesis – only those that are reasonable.” Adams, 317 Ga. at 348 

(1) (citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted). “Whether 

alternative hypotheses are reasonable is principally a question for 

the jury, and this Court will not disturb the jury’s finding unless it 

is insupportable as a matter of law.” Id. (citation and punctuation 

omitted).

Here, based on the evidence summarized above, we conclude 

that the jury was free to reject as unreasonable the hypothesis that 

Appellant did not shoot Mitchell, or, at the least, knowingly 

participate in Mitchell’s murder, and that she was killed by someone

else such as Appellant’s “brother.” Accordingly, the evidence was 

also sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions under OCGA § 24-

14-6. See Taylor v. State, 313 Ga. 5, 9-10 (867 SE2d 88) (2021) 

(affirming murder conviction under circumstantial-evidence statute 

where the evidence showed that defendant went to the area where 

the victim was shot only minutes before shooting; that after the 

shooting, he emerged looking distraught and was pacing the room, 
20

that defendant made inconsistent statements to police officers; that 

defendant and victim had a lengthy, unusual conversation the day 

before the shooting; and that ballistics evidence showed that 

defendant’s gun fired the fatal shot; and based on this evidence, the 

jury was authorized to reject as unreasonable defendant’s 

alternative theories that a stranger or a family member killed the 

victim or that the victim committed suicide and accept the State’s 

theory that defendant shot and killed the victim).

3. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in instructing the 

jury on party to a crime. We identify no error.

The trial court charged the jury as follows:

Every party to a crime may be charged with and convicted 

of commission of the crime. A person is a party to a crime 

only if that person directly commits the crime or 

intentionally helps in the commission of the crime. Any 

party to a crime who did not directly commit the crime 

may be prosecuted for commission of the crime upon proof 

that the crime was committed, and that the person was a 

party to it, even though the person alleged to have directly 

committed the crime has not been prosecuted or convicted 

or is not amenable to justice. 

“To authorize a requested jury instruction, there need be only 
21

slight evidence supporting the theory of the charge.” McClure v. 

State, 306 Ga. 856, 863 (1) (834 SE2d 96) (2019). “Conviction as a 

party to a crime requires proof that the defendant shared a common 

criminal intent with the principal perpetrator of the crime, which 

may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before, 

during, and after the offense.” Collins v. State, 312 Ga. 727, 732 (2) 

(a) (864 SE2d 85) (2021). While Appellant argues the State did not 

advance the party-to-a-crime theory, “even if the party requesting a 

charge on a particular theory did not advance that theory, that 

instruction is authorized as long as slight evidence supports the 

theory of the charge.” Bowman v. State, 317 Ga. 457, 461 (2) (a) (893 

SE2d 735) (2023). 

Here, there was at least slight evidence that Appellant was a 

party to the crimes. The evidence showed that Appellant texted 

Mitchell late at night on December 30, 2018, to coordinate a place 

for them to meet; that, by means of those text messages, he directed 

her to Glen Emerald Park, where she was found dead the following 

day; and that, during the course of their correspondence, Appellant 
22

told Mitchell that both he and his “brother” would be present and 

that his “brother” would provide her with the marijuana. This 

constituted at least slight evidence from which a jury could conclude 

that, at a minimum, Appellant was involved in the events leading 

up to and including Mitchell’s murder, and thus, was a party to the 

crimes.

Therefore, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on 

such a theory. See Leeks v. State, 303 Ga. 104, 106-107 (2) (810 SE2d 

536) (2018) (holding that the trial court did not err in instructing the 

jury on party to a crime where the State did not indict defendant as 

such nor rely upon such theory in presenting its case to the jury, but 

there was testimony that defendant discussed robbing the store with 

his two co-indictees and that he fled the scene of the crime with one 

of his co-indictees, which was “at least slight evidence” supporting 

the party-to-a-crime theory). See also Meadows v. State, 316 Ga. 22, 

24-25 (2) (885 SE2d 780) (2023) (holding that the evidence was 

constitutionally sufficient to support defendant’s convictions of 

malice murder and related crimes as at least a party to the crimes 
23

where the evidence showed that defendant and an unidentified 

driver arranged to meet the victim, that they met the victim at a gas 

station, and that either defendant or the driver shot and killed the 

victim from inside the driver’s vehicle). 

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.