The Arkansas Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Kevasia Tate on charges of capital murder and aggravated assault, rejecting his arguments about several evidentiary rulings made during his trial. The court’s decision, delivered on November 20, 2025, addressed six specific points of contention raised by Tate, focusing primarily on the admissibility of certain statements and expert testimony.
The Case’s Background
The case stems from a shooting on February 26, 2022, at a house in Conway, Arkansas, where a gathering was taking place. An argument between Tate and David Hood escalated, with Tate making threats before leaving. Shortly after, Tate and another individual, Tyrius Harris, returned to the house. A gunfight erupted, resulting in Hood’s death.
Tate was convicted of capital murder, aggravated assault, and a firearm enhancement. He received a life sentence without parole for the murder, concurrent five-year sentences for the assault charges, and a consecutive ten-year sentence for the firearm enhancement.
The Challenges to Evidence
Tate’s appeal focused on six specific rulings by the trial court regarding the admission of evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed each of these, applying the standard of “abuse of discretion” to the trial court’s decisions. This standard means the court must have acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner.
A. Hearsay in Marketus Lowe’s Testimony
One of the key issues involved the testimony of Marketus Lowe, a witness at the party. Tate challenged the admission of Lowe’s testimony regarding statements made by David Hood before the shooting. Specifically, Tate objected to Lowe’s recounting of Hood asking for a gun. The trial court initially overruled the objection, and the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s decision, though for a slightly different reason. The Supreme Court found that these statements were made to explain why Hood took the actions he took and were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and thus they weren’t hearsay. The court also noted that Tate did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the admission of this testimony, especially since Tate raised self-defense at trial.
B. Hearsay in Angela Marshall’s Testimony
Another point of contention was the testimony of Angela Marshall, who was also at the party. The State presented Marshall’s testimony about Shamika Little’s reaction to Tate’s threats. Little told everyone to get out of the house. Tate argued this was hearsay. The Supreme Court found that Little’s statements were admissible as an “excited utterance,” a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. The court reasoned that Little’s statements were made under the stress of the event (Tate’s threat) and were directly related to that event.
C. Hearsay in Officer Whitley’s Testimony
The court addressed another hearsay issue related to the testimony of Officer Keith Whitley, a responding officer. Officer Whitley testified about what Shamika Little told him at the scene of the accident. Little told the officer there was a gunshot victim in the back seat. Again, the Supreme Court determined that Little’s statements were admissible as an excited utterance, given the circumstances of the shooting and the subsequent accident.
D. Expert Testimony from Detective Michael Gibbons
Tate also challenged the expert testimony of Detective Michael Gibbons, a firearms expert. Detective Gibbons testified about the type of weapon used in the shooting, relying on video footage. Tate argued that Detective Gibbons was not qualified to testify about the video footage. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Tate did not provide any authority or convincing argument to support his claim that the detective’s conclusion was flawed.
E. Misapplication of Arkansas Rule of Evidence 612
A further point of contention was the testimony of Officer Francisco Joseph. Tate’s counsel objected to Officer Joseph bringing a piece of paper to the witness stand. The trial court overruled the objection. On appeal, Tate argued that Officer Joseph’s testimony was “tainted” by this ruling and violated Rule 612 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that Tate failed to demonstrate that Officer Joseph used the paper to refresh his memory or that the State was not required to produce the paper.
F. Cumulative Error
Finally, Tate argued that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors prejudiced the jury. The Supreme Court found that this argument was not preserved for review because Tate did not make a cumulative-error objection at trial.
Concurring Opinion
Justice Nicholas J. Bronni wrote a separate concurring opinion, disagreeing with the majority’s analysis of the hearsay issues. Justice Bronni argued that the statements challenged by Tate were not hearsay in the first place, as they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Justice Bronni believed the court should have simply concluded that the statements were not hearsay and affirmed the conviction on that basis.
In essence, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence and affirmed Tate’s convictions.