In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: February 1, 2021

S20A1230. KITCHENS v. THE STATE.

 ELLINGTON, Justice.

A Richmond County jury found Willie Kitchens guilty of two 

counts of malice murder, arson, attempted rape and other crimes in 

connection with the stabbing deaths of Corey Kemp and Melanie 

Troupe.1 In his sole claim of error, Appellant contends that the trial 

 1 Kemp and Troupe were killed on June 23, 2011. A Jefferson County 

grand jury indicted Appellant for two counts of malice murder, two counts of 

felony murder, two counts of burglary, armed robbery, two counts of false 

imprisonment, arson in the first degree, criminal damage to property in the 

first degree, and the rape of Troupe. After Appellant moved for a change of 

venue, the trial court transferred the case to Richmond County for purposes of 

trial. Following a trial in March 2014, the jury found Appellant guilty of both 

malice murder counts, one count of burglary, armed robbery, two counts of 

false imprisonment, arson in the first degree, criminal damage to property in 

the first degree, and attempted rape as a lesser included offense of rape. 

Appellant was found not guilty of the remaining charges. On the murder 

counts, the trial court sentenced Appellant to consecutive life sentences

without parole. The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the following 

prison sentences concurrently with the first murder count: 20 years for 

burglary, 20 years for arson in the first degree, life for armed robbery, and 10 

years for the first count of false imprisonment. The trial court sentenced 
2

court erred in allowing a witness to offer hearsay testimony that 

Appellant was responsible for the crimes. We affirm.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the 

evidence at trial showed the following. Shortly after midnight on 

June 24, 2011, police and firefighters responded to a fire at Troupe’s 

home in Wadley. Troupe lived with her two-year-old son and her 

grandmother, both of whom were away on an out-of-town trip when 

the fire broke out. Kemp was Troupe’s boyfriend.

As firefighters forced their way through the locked front door 

of the home, they saw what appeared to be blood on the threshold. 

They discovered Kemp’s body in the smoke-filled living room. A

later-arriving firefighter noticed smoke coming from under a 

bedroom door. When he opened the door, a fire on the mattress

 

Appellant to serve 10 years for the second count of false imprisonment to be 

served concurrently with his second life sentence for murder. The trial court 

also sentenced Appellant to serve 30 years in prison for attempted rape to run 

consecutive to his second life sentence for murder. The trial court merged the 

criminal damage to property count with Appellant’s conviction for arson in the 

first degree. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on March 26, 2014, 

which he amended on January 14, 2019. Following a hearing, the trial court 

denied Appellant’s amended motion for new trial on April 3, 2020. Appellant 

filed a timely notice of appeal, and the case was docketed to the August 2020 

term of this Court and submitted for decision on the briefs.
3

flared up. Troupe’s body, which was covered in first and second 

degree burns, was lying in the bedroom with her hands tied behind 

her back with what appeared to be shoelaces and with her shirt 

pulled up above her breasts. Both victims were in a state of partial 

undress.

The firefighters observed that an eye of the stove had been left 

burning in the kitchen. An arson investigator later determined that 

one fire had been ignited on top of sofa cushions placed on Kemp’s 

body. A second fire had been started on bedding material lying on 

Troupe’s body and the mattress.

The medical examiner testified that Kemp and Troupe had no 

smoke in their lungs and did not die as a result of the fire. Rather, 

both died as a result of multiple stab wounds. Kemp had cuts and 

stab wounds on his head, neck, chest, and abdomen, as well as 

defensive wounds on his arms. His testicles were also bruised.

Troupe had been stabbed 39 times and had injuries to her head, 

neck, chest, back, hands, and abdomen. 

A GBI investigator who responded to the crime scene
4

canvassed the neighborhood for witnesses. He spoke with Appellant, 

who lived across the street from Troupe. The investigator testified 

that Appellant was nervous, his hands were shaking, and he had 

cuts on his hands and scratches on his neck. Appellant agreed to be 

interviewed at the police station.

During the interview, Appellant said that he had never been 

inside Troupe’s home, although he had worked in the yard and 

installed an air conditioning window unit from the outside. 

Appellant initially declined to submit a DNA sample and left the 

station. However, he returned about 20 minutes later and agreed to 

give the sample if the agents promised not to search his home. After

the agents informed Appellant that they could not make such a 

promise, Appellant allowed the sample to be taken.

Appellant was arrested later that day. Agents photographed 

Appellant’s injuries, which consisted of fresh cuts on his hand and 

scratches on his face and body. When Appellant was arrested he was 

wearing, among other things, a pair of size 10 1⁄2 Reebok brand 

tennis shoes.
5

At the crime scene, agents found bloody footprints that could 

not be attributed to the first responders. The footprints were found

on the floor underneath Kemp’s body, on the back steps, and in the

yard leading away from the house. At trial, a GBI forensic examiner 

testified that the shoe prints were made by a size 10 1⁄2 Adidas brand 

tennis shoe. Two pair of Adidas brand tennis shoes, one pair size 11 

and another pair size 10 1⁄2, were recovered from Appellant’s 

residence, but the GBI examiner was not able to match those shoes 

with the shoe prints found at the crime scene. Video taken at a gas 

station on the day of the murder showed Appellant making a 

purchase there while wearing Adidas brand tennis shoes. The shoes 

that Appellant was seen wearing in the video were never found by 

police. 

In a wooded area near Troupe’s home, officers found a child’s 

yellow shirt and a white hand cloth lying a few feet apart on a mound 

along a path. Troupe’s grandmother testified that the yellow shirt 

belonged to Troupe’s son. Officers also found an adult’s green shirt 

lying about 20 feet away from the mound. A witness testified that 
6

she had seen Appellant wearing that shirt at a club the week before 

the incident.

Blood stains on the yellow shirt tested positive for DNA that 

matched the DNA of Troupe and Kemp. The blood on the green shirt 

tested positive for Kemp’s DNA. Appellant’s DNA was found on the 

white cloth. In Appellant’s yard, police found a towel, a white and 

blue child’s shirt, and a purse. Kemp’s blood was found on the white 

towel and the child’s shirt. The purse contained Troupe’s

identification card. 

Several witnesses testified at trial that Appellant and Troupe 

were more than acquaintances. Jimmy Williams, Appellant’s friend, 

testified that about a year before the murders, Appellant told him 

that he was in a romantic relationship with Troupe. According to 

Williams, Appellant later informed him that Troupe and Kemp were 

“together” in a relationship. Williams characterized Appellant as 

having been obsessed with Troupe.

One of Troupe’s friends testified that Troupe said that 

Appellant had been stalking her. The friend noticed that Troupe did 
7

not like being alone and would stay with her when Troupe’s 

grandmother was not home. Another witness, Troupe’s co-worker,

testified about an incident that occurred about three months before 

the killings. She testified that Troupe pointed a man out to her and 

said “that guy keep[s] bothering me. I . . . told him I don’t want him.”

The witness saw that the man “looked like one of the Kitchens boys.” 

Another of Troupe’s friends testified that she spoke with 

Troupe on the phone as Troupe’s grandmother packed to go out of 

town. The friend said that Troupe told her that “you know who” was 

standing outside her home. Based on her other conversations with 

Troupe, she understood that Troupe was referring to Appellant. 

The prosecution also offered other-act evidence that showed 

that Appellant had choked an ex-girlfriend until she lost

consciousness. In another incident, the ex-girlfriend testified, 

Appellant tied her hands behind her back and had sexual 

intercourse with her against her will.

Williams also testified over objection about a statement made 

to him by Debra Kitchens, Appellant’s sister. According to Williams, 
8

he and his girlfriend drove to the crime scene between 8:00 a.m. and 

9:00 a.m. on the morning after the killings. Debra walked up to the 

car and said “Willie did it.” 

Debra testified at trial before Williams did. The prosecutor did 

not ask Debra during her testimony whether she told Williams that 

Appellant had committed the murders. Nor was she recalled to the 

stand after Williams testified. Debra testified to the following: On 

the evening of the murders, she sat outside her home with Appellant 

and others. Appellant left the premises around 9:00 p.m., and Debra 

left about 30 minutes later. Debra returned home around 11:30 p.m., 

at which time she went straight to her bedroom. She testified that 

she did not see Appellant. About 10 minutes later, a cousin alerted 

her to the fire at Troupe’s home. After coming out of her room, Debra

saw Appellant sitting on the sofa. She went outside and then went 

to the scene of the fire with others. She did not see Appellant at the 

scene.

1. Appellant does not dispute the legal sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting his convictions. Nevertheless, we have reviewed 
9

the record and conclude that, when viewed in the light most 

favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial and 

summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find 

Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which 

he was convicted. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) 

(99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).2

2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing 

Williams to give inadmissible hearsay testimony that Debra told 

Williams that Appellant “did it.” The trial court admitted the 

testimony over objection after concluding that Debra’s statement fell 

within the present sense impression and excited utterance 

exceptions to the rule against hearsay.3 See OCGA § 24-8-803 (1) 

(defining present sense impression exception to the rule against 

 2 We remind litigants that this Court will end its practice of considering 

the sufficiency of the evidence sua sponte in non-death penalty cases with cases 

docketed to the term of court that begins in December 2020. See Davenport v. 

State, 309 Ga. 385, 391-392 (4) (846 SE2d 83) (2020). This Court began 

assigning cases to the December term on August 3, 2020.

3 Kitchens was tried in 2014 under Georgia’s current Evidence Code. See 

Ga. L. 2011, pp. 99, 214, § 101.
10

hearsay); OCGA § 24-8-803 (2) (defining excited utterance exception 

to the rule against hearsay). Appellant argues that the statement 

was not a present sense impression or an excited utterance.4

Assuming without deciding that the trial court abused its 

discretion in admitting the hearsay, any error was harmless. “In 

determining whether the error was harmless, we review the record 

de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable 

jurors to have done so. The test for determining nonconstitutional 

harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not 

contribute to the verdict.” Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 147, 153-154 

(3) (805 SE2d 873) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted).

The evidence showed that Appellant was obsessed with Troupe 

and had been stalking her, and that Troupe saw him outside her 

home on the day of the murders as her grandmother prepared to 

 4 Appellant also argues that the hearsay was not part of the “res gestae” 

because the declarant did not speak from personal knowledge. The “res gestae” 

exception to the rule against hearsay is not recognized under our current 

Evidence Code and was not a ground for the statement’s admission by the trial 

court. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 292 Ga. 785, 789 n.4 (741 SE2d 627) (2013) 

(“[T]he new Evidence Code does not use the term res gestae.” (punctuation 

omitted)).
11

leave for an out-of-town trip. Appellant wore size 10 1⁄2 shoes, the 

same size of the bloody shoeprints found at the murder scene. A 

hand cloth with Appellant’s DNA was found on a trail behind 

Troupe’s home near clothing containing the victims’ blood. That 

clothing included a green shirt that a witness had seen Appellant

wearing and that forensic evidence showed had been splattered with

Kemp’s blood. A purse containing Troupe’s identification was 

recovered from Appellant’s yard along with a towel and a shirt 

containing Kemp’s blood. When taken into custody on the day after 

the murders, Appellant’s hand was freshly cut and there were 

numerous scratches on his body. Troupe’s body was found with her 

hands tied behind her back and her shirt pulled up above her 

breasts. A former girlfriend of Appellant testified that he bound her 

hands behind her back and had sexual intercourse with her against 

her will. In light of the strong evidence of Appellant’s guilt, it is 

highly probable that any error in admitting Debra’s out-of-court 

statement, which did not indicate why she believed Appellant 

committed the crimes, did not contribute to the verdicts. See
12

Hampton v. State, 308 Ga. 797, 802-803 (2) (843 SE2d 542) (2020) 

(assuming error in admission of hearsay, the error was harmless 

given, among other things, forensic evidence pointing to appellant’s 

guilt); Perez v. State, 303 Ga. 188, 190-191 (2) (811 SE2d 331) (2018)

(pretermitting error in the admission of the victim’s hearsay 

statement, it was highly probable that the admission did not 

contribute to the verdict given the overwhelming evidence of 

appellant’s guilt). 

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.