The Georgia Supreme Court has affirmed the murder and racketeering convictions against Terrence Upshaw, Roderick Glanton, and Homer Upshaw for a deadly 2021 shooting, rejecting several claims concerning the admission of past crimes and the sufficiency of evidence.
The case stems from a June 14, 2021, incident near the Wilson Apartments where a shooting injured two individuals, Wandray Harris and Ta’Journey Lee, and resulted in the deaths of Saiveon Pugh and Jesse Ransom. Following a joint trial, the three men were found guilty on multiple counts, including two counts of malice murder and numerous violations of Georgia’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act (the “Gang Act”).
Convictions and Sentences Detailed
The defendants faced a lengthy indictment that included charges ranging from malice murder and felony murder to aggravated assault and various Gang Act violations. Following the 2023 trial, the jury convicted all three men on all charges.
Terrence Upshaw and Roderick Glanton each received two concurrent life sentences for the malice murders, along with significant prison time for related assault and property damage counts. Their sentences for the Gang Act violations were set to run consecutively to their other sentences. Homer Upshaw received a harsher sentence for the murders: two concurrent life sentences *without* the possibility of parole, also followed by consecutive sentences for the remaining offenses. The court noted that felony murder counts were vacated by operation of law, and some aggravated assault counts merged with the murder convictions.
Challenging the Evidence and Gang Allegations
On appeal, the defendants raised several key arguments. The most significant contention, shared by all three, was that the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce evidence of their prior criminal offenses as proof of criminal gang activity under Georgia’s Rule 418.
Additionally, Glanton and Homer challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their malice murder and Gang Act convictions. Glanton also sought a new trial on general grounds, while Homer contested certain evidentiary rulings related to cross-examination.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Murder and Gang Charges
The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the evidence supporting the convictions. Regarding the malice murder charges against Glanton and Homer, the Court found the evidence sufficient to justify the jury’s finding of an intent to kill. The evidence showed the defendants emerged from a home, waited, and then fired repeatedly at the victims’ car as it drove past, causing the crash that killed two occupants.
Glanton argued the State failed to disprove his justification defense—the claim that they acted in self-defense. While the victims were armed (carrying a handgun and a rifle, some wearing ski masks), the Court noted the jury was entitled to reject this defense. Crucially, the surviving victims testified they were simply lost and did not fire their weapons. Ballistic evidence confirmed that no shots fired *from* the victims’ car matched the casings found at the scene. The Court concluded that the jury was authorized to find the defendants’ response—firing over 50 rounds—was not reasonably necessary to defend against any perceived threat.
For the Gang Act violations, the State relied heavily on expert testimony identifying the defendants as members of the Marlo Gang, a group that had evolved from earlier local gangs. Evidence included social media photos showing the defendants using hand signals associated with the Marlo Gang, as well as evidence of drug sales. The Court affirmed that the state proved the existence of the gang, the defendants’ association, and that the underlying crimes (murder, assault, drug activity) constituted “criminal gang activity.”
Furthermore, the Court found the “nexus” element—that the crime furthered the gang’s interests—was established. Experts testified that gangs respond violently to territorial infringement to maintain reputation and control. The jury reasonably inferred that shooting at the victims’ car, which was driving through the area where the Marlo Gang allegedly operated its drug business, was an act intended to protect turf and project strength.
Rule 418: Prior Crimes Admitted
The Court addressed the defendants’ challenge to the admission of prior drug offenses under OCGA § 24-4-418 (Rule 418). This rule permits evidence of prior criminal gang activity when gang activity is an issue.
The prior incidents involved Homer’s 2016 arrest for marijuana and a stolen firearm while associated with the Taliban 5150 gang (a precursor to the Marlo Gang), Terrence’s 2020 drug and stolen firearm discovery, and Glanton’s prior stops involving ecstasy, marijuana, and firearms.
The Supreme Court reasoned that because drug offenses qualify as “criminal gang activity” under the broad statutory definition, these prior crimes were admissible under Rule 418 to prove that element of the Gang Act charges. The Court found the evidence relevant—meeting the low bar for relevance—and concluded the trial court correctly balanced the probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice, noting the prior crimes were not so inflammatory as to lure the jury into convicting on an improper basis, especially given the evidence of large-scale drug sales at the time of the shooting.
Other Evidentiary Rulings Upheld
Homer Upshaw argued the trial court erred by excluding social media messages between the deceased victims, Ransom and Pugh. The messages indicated the victims were planning to shoot a different individual, Quadarrius Cruise, who was visiting the area. Homer claimed this evidence supported his justification defense by showing the victims were actively looking for conflict.
The Court found that even if excluding the messages was an error (as hearsay), it was “harmless.” The Court reasoned that knowing the victims might have intended to shoot a third party would not significantly change the jury’s assessment of whether *Homer reasonably believed* he was in immediate danger from the victims driving by his location.
Finally, Homer objected to the admission of a *Scarface* “meme” posted by Glanton on social media. The meme referenced “Real gangsters got morals” and “Kids off limits.” The Court found that even if admitting the meme was error, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of premeditated violence and gang involvement presented against the defendants.
In summary, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed all convictions, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of the evidence or the key evidentiary rulings made by the trial court.