Dempsey v. State - Appeal of Felony Murder Convictions

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: February 1 7, 2026 S2 5A1 111. DEMPSEY v. THE STATE. L A G RUA, Ju stice. Appe llant Le ’Quan Demp sey app eals his co nvictio ns for felony murder and othe r crim es rel ated to th e sh ooti ng dea ths of Joh n Pendr ak and Aiden Reyno lds. 1 On appeal, Demps ey argu es that his convi ctions sh ould be rev ers ed bec ause (1) th e ev id ence w as legally insuffic ient t o support the verdicts, and (2) the tr ial court ab used its ————————————————————— 1 Pendr ak and Reyn olds were killed on July 21, 2 022. On N ovember 16, 2022, a Gwinnett County grand jury indicted De mpsey for the followi ng counts: felony murder predicated on ag gravated assault (Counts 1 and 2); felony murder predicated on armed robbery (Counts 3 a nd 4); aggravated assa ult (Counts 5 and 6); armed robbe ry (Count s 7 and 8); and possession of a fire arm during the commiss ion of a felo ny (Counts 9 and 10). Demp sey was tried fro m April 10 to 24, 2023, and t he jury fou nd Dempsey guil ty on all counts. The trial court sentenced De mpsey to life without the possibility of parole on Counts 3 and 4, to run conc urrently; five years in confinement on Count 9, t o run consecutively to Co unt 3; and five y ears in confinem ent on Count 10, to run consecutively to Count 9. The rem aining counts merged o r were vacated by operation of law. Dempsey filed a t imely motion for ne w trial, which he la ter amended through new cou nsel on Octob er 28, 2024. After holding a hearing on the motion, the t rial court denied it on April 1 5, 2025. Dem psey filed a tim ely notice of appeal to this Cour t, an d the c ase was docketed i n this Court to the August 2025 term a nd submitted for a d ecision on the b riefs. NOTICE: T his opini on is subje ct to mo dificat ion res ultin g from motion s for re consi derat ion unde r Supre me C ourt Rule 27, the Court ’s recons ideratio n, and edit orial rev isions by t he Report er of Decisi ons. The ver sion of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geor gia Report s, desig nated as th e “Final Co py,” will replace a ny prior version on the Court’s websi te and docket. A bound volu me of the Georgi a Reports will con tain the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 discr etion by adm ittin g eviden ce that Demp sey was on proba tio n at the time of th e incident. For th e rea sons s et f orth bel ow, we rej ect Dempsey ’s a rgum ents. A cco rdin gly, we aff irm. The evi dence p res ented at t rial s how ed tha t, during t he ear ly morni ng h ours of Jul y 21, 20 22, P endrak and R eyn olds were s hot and kille d at Sunset Par k in the Norr is Lake neighbo rhood of Gwinne tt Count y. Prior to that night, on July 19, Reynolds received a messag e on In stagr am from an In stagram accou nt — later determi ned t o be D empsey’s — asking if he had m ariju ana for s ale. Reyno lds responded that he did not kno w the Ins tagram use r who was c ontacting h im, and the user in dicated that he got Rey nolds ’s name from a person at “th e l ake” be cause the user was “ trying t o shop. ” Througho ut July 19 and 20, the u ser of Demps ey’s In stagram accoun t and Rey nol ds exch ange d m ulti ple In stagra m mess ages and conduct ed Instag ram v ide o call s co ncern ing the pro posed d rug deal. On Ju ly 20, R ey nolds call ed Pen dr ak and told P en drak that h e “had a pl ay,” and P endrak ’s girl fri end, K ayla B lack, ove rheard the conve rsati on. Black heard Reyn olds tell P endra k th at he “had

3 somebod y th at w anted f our pou nd s [of ma riju ana] for $200. ” Bl ack told Pendrak t hat he wa s “crazy ” and the deal “d idn’t so und right” becaus e f our pou nds of ma riju ana was wo rth m uch more than $200. Addi tional ly, accordin g to B lack, Pen drak onl y pos sesse d two an d a half ounces of m ariju ana a t the t ime. Late r t hat ni ght, Black overhe ard R eynol ds on an Instag ram v ideo c all t alki ng to som eon e about t he dru g d eal, and i n the b ackgr oun d, Bl ack h eard an other person tal kin g. On the night of July 2 0, Bla ck, Reyno lds, a nd Pendra k drove in Reyn olds’s car t o Su nset P ark, whi ch was the l ocati on propo sed v ia a mess age f rom the us er of Dempsey ’s In st agram accoun t. B lack tes tified t hat Pendr ak and Reynold s did no t communic ate w ith anyon e oth er th an th e user of Dempsey ’s In stag ram a ccou nt regar ding the ir plan to go to t he park that night. Black, Reyn olds, and Pen drak ar riv ed at th e p ark at ap proxi matel y 12:00 a.m. on July 21, and they sat in the car and wa ited. At 12:25 a.m., the us er o f Dem psey ’s In stag ram ac cou nt mes sag ed Reyn olds sayi ng, “H ere.”

4 Survei ll ance vi deos from a ne arby hou se 2 showed that, at 12:2 6 a.m., Reyno lds fla shed his car’s lig hts; Pendr ak and Reyno lds go t out of the car; and anot her pers on ap pea red ne ar the pa rk entr ance. Pendrak was w eari ng a backpack, and Bla ck te stified that Pend rak ha d m arijuana in his p ossess ion. Bl ack st ayed in the car, and sh e saw so meone “walking down the hill” to meet Pendrak a nd Reynold s in the p ark. Black then p ut her h ead dow n an d fel l asle ep. Sh e wok e up to the sound of gunsho ts, a nd she looked for R eynol ds and P endrak bu t did n ot see them. Bl ack then saw tw o peopl e wea rin g all black, and she testif ied that “on e was a t alle r mor e sli mmer bu ild, ” and t he other “ was a l ittl e sh orte r, bu t more thi ck.” Bl ack testi fied that she saw th e pe rson w ith the “bi gge r bod y, the w ide body ” tuc k a gun into his or her w ais tband. Bl ack th en saw som eone from one of t he nearby hous es c ome ou tsid e, an d the two p eopl e fro m the park looke d in tha t direct ion and “t urned a round and ran off.” After th ey ————————————————————— 2 These surveilla nce videos were ad mitted by stipulatio n of the parties and played for the j ury at trial.

5 ran off, Black got out of the ca r and ap proa ched Rey nold s and Pendr ak, who wer e lying on t he ground, a nd she atte mpted to render aid. B lack then c all ed 911. Afte r Black calle d 911, Gwinne tt Count y Police Officer Johnny Norman arri ved at t he pa rk, wher e he fou nd the bo dies of Pendr ak and Rey nold s an d secur ed th e scen e. 3 At the s cene, inv estigat ors recove red m ulti pl e 9mm cart ridge cas ing s, all of wh ich were fi red from th e s ame firea rm. Addi tion all y, i nvesti gator s r ecove red a BB gun, whi ch w as tucked into th e w aistb and of P end rak’s p ants, but they di d not re cov er any fi rea rms at the sc ene. T he back pack tha t Pendrak was carrying when he arr ived at the park was miss ing. Gwi nnett Cou nty Poli ce Corp oral Wil li am Webb al so respon ded to the scene w ith h is as si gned pat rol can i ne, and Corpo ral Webb was in form ed tha t th e suspe cts ran tow ards a re tain ing wall across th e str eet from the park. C orpo ral We bb an d his canine sta rted track ing near the reta ining wall, a nd while they w ere ————————————————————— 3 The cause of death for Reynolds was multiple gunshot wounds to th e head, back, and rig ht lower extremity. The cause of death for Pendrak was multiple gunshot w ounds to the b ack and the left upp er extremity.

6 tracki ng, a witn ess ap pro ached Corpor al We bb an d said th at sh e saw a ma le in all bla ck running up a nearby street. Corpor al W ebb and his canine proceed ed in that direc tion, and the canine tracked to a house on Amy R oad. Co rpor al We bb an d oth er off icer s attemp ted t o do a “kn ock and t alk, ” but n obo dy ans wered the door. Aroun d 2:30 a. m., G win nett C ount y Pol ice Serg eant B rian Piers on, the lead detecti ve in the case, arrived on scene and spok e to Black. B lack tol d Serge ant P ier son th at Rey nold s h ad mess aged someon e on Inst agram reg ardi ng a drug d eal, an d Bl ack pr ovi ded Reyn olds’s I nst agram acc ount n ame t o Se rgeant Piers on. Sergean t Piers on se cured a s earch w ar rant f or the infor mation o n Reynold s’s Instag ram ac cou nt and found a conv ersati on pertaining to a dr ug deal betwe en R eynol ds and an Ins tagram u ser, “p opsh ots_ ej.” During his inves tiga tion, Ser geant Pier son lear ned thro ugh t wo witnes ses, M adison Mille r and McKenz ie Brown, t hat t he “popsh ots _ej” In stagr am acc oun t bel onged t o som eo ne they knew as “EJ. ” Brown also to ld Sergea nt Pierson tha t she went to high sc hool with “EJ ” and “did his hair ” at the Amy R oad hous e about a w ee k

7 befor e the m urd ers. Sergean t Pi erso n th en obtai ned i nforma tion from s chool official s t hat De mpsey goes by “E J,” and th at a nother s tu dent, Kejua n Davis, lived at the Amy Roa d house. After acquiring Dempsey ’s n ame an d da te of birth from s chool off icial s, Se rgeant Piers on lea rned that D emps ey w as on p robati on, and Serg eant Piers on “ talked to [Dempsey’s ] p robat ion offi cer. ” O n August 5, Sergean t P iers on went t o th e Amy R oad h ouse, wh ich i s a l ittl e ove r 1,000 feet from Su nset P ark, where he spoke to two witn esses who confirm ed th at D emps ey ha d rec ent ly been at the h ouse. On A ugu st 10, S erge ant Piers on in terview ed D emps ey, who was 16 at the t ime, at his hom e with his grandm other p resent. D uring the inte rview, Demp sey gave his c ell phone to S ergean t Piers on. On Aug ust 1 5, af ter readi ng D empsey th e “Advice of Right s to J uveniles ” form, 4 Serg ean t Pi erson in tervi ewe d Dempsey again in the p resence o f his grandmo ther at polic e hea dqua rters. ————————————————————— 4 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1 966); Fare v. Michae l C., 442 US 707 (1979); C lark v. State, 3 15 Ga. 423 (2023).

8 Throu ghou t thes e in tervi ews, D em psey a ssert ed th at he was at home i n Av ondal e Esta tes du ring the ti me of the m urd ers. However, D emp sey’s explan ati on s evolv ed as i nves tigato rs confr onted him in t he inter views. Sp ecifically, Dempse y made the follo wing claim s: (1) he delet ed his “ Instagram ” p rior to th e murd ers becaus e he was on “ probati on,” and “they” sai d that he n eeded t o stay away from “n egative, like, activit ies and stuff; ” (2) he had not been at t he A my Road hou se f or several m onths pri or to the murders; (3) his Instag ram a ccount ha d recent ly been hacked; (4) he used h is Instagr am account t o make voi ce cal ls and sen d som e messages to R eynolds a bout t he dru g deal, a nd Davis al so used Dempsey ’s Instagram account to sen d s ome mes sages; 5 (5) he d id not have his phone from July 19 to 24, 20 22; (6) Da vi s used Dem psey’s phone t o comm un icate regard ing the dru g deal because Davi s’s phone w as brok en at t he ti me; 6 and (7) Amar ion Johnso n, an ————————————————————— 5 In his br ief, Demps ey acknowledges that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence showe d that his Instagr am account was used to set up the drug deal. 6 Contrary to Dempsey’s assertion, Davi s’s cell phone records revealed that his phone wa s connecting to cell tow ers during and arou nd the time of the

9 acquai ntance o f Dav is, and D avis com mitted th e mu rders. 7 Additi o nall y, Dempsey s tated th at, af ter invest iga tors sea rched th e Amy Road house, Davis called Dempsey a nd said that inve stigat ors found a fire arm ins ide th e hous e. 8 After Sergeant Pierson ob tained a sea rch warra nt for the inform ation on Dempsey ’s cell phone, the Gwinne tt Count y Police Depart ment ’s forensi c lab com pleted a phone data extr action. Inves tigato rs dis covere d several changes m ade to accou nts on Dempsey ’s pho ne on the day of the murders. S pecifica lly, (1) the passwo rd for De mpsey’s Appl e ID emai l was rese t; (2) the “ Find My iPh one” feature on Dempsey’s phone was di sabled; and (3) Dempsey ’s “popsh ots_ej” Instagra m account w as delete d. A nd, o n August 5, a f acto ry res et of the phone o ccurr ed. After obtain ing a search war rant for Demp sey’s Ins tagram accoun t, Sergean t Pie rson ————————————————————— murders. Sergeant Pierson testified tha t Davis moved to Ch icago shortly after the murders. 7 Johnson’s cell phone records show ed that his phone was in Illinois around the time of t he murders. 8 Subseque nt testing showed tha t this firearm did no t match the cart ridge casings fo und at the crime sce ne.

10 found several videos th at show ed Dempsey at the Amy Road hou se between July 17 and 20, 2022. Addi tionally, Dempsey’s In stagram acco unt include d video s in which De mpsey wa s hold ing a Taur us 9mm ha ndgun. Lastl y, aft er exami ning D empsey’s cell p ho ne record s an d th e cel l tower info rmation a round Su nset Pa rk, invest igato rs confirme d that, betwee n July 1 7 and 21, 2022, Dempsey ’s phone was in th at are a and call s were mad e from a nd receiv ed by Dempsey’s phone to and from D empsey’s g randmothe r, with whom he live d. Inves tigato rs also obt ained “g eofence” i nform ation fr om Googl e for th e Suns et Park area arou nd the t ime of the murders but d id not see D empsey ’s cell phone wi thin the geo fence. H owev er, Inv esti gato r John W ilbanks wit h the Gwinnett Co unty District Attorn ey’s O ffice testifie d that Google geof ence dat a is not always rel iable becau se a user will not a ppear wit hin the ge ofence unle ss the use r is acce ssing a Googl e acc ount du ring the r equested ti meframe. At trial, along w ith pres enting th e eviden ce de tailed above, th e State c alled Mil ler and Brown as witnes ses. Duri ng Miller’s

11 testim ony, sh e identi fied Demps ey’s Instag ram acco unt and sta ted that Dem psey wa s at the A my Roa d house in July 2022. Miller a lso tes tified that s he had seen De mpsey with a Ta urus 9mm fir earm and t hat she p reviously he ld that fire arm. Additiona lly, Miller tes tified that, around 11:00 a.m. on July 21, Demp sey spoke to her via In stagram and sai d th at he w as “ going to get locked up for some prob ation, s omething about h is proba tion. ” Br own testi fied th a t she had se en Dempse y with a firearm, that sh e “d id his ha ir ” at the Amy Road hou se aroun d July 14, and that D avis liv ed at the Amy Road house. Brown also testi fied tha t, after th e murde rs, Mil ler call ed Brown and told B rown that Dempsey k illed Rey nolds and Pendr ak. 1. Dem psey arg ues that the evidence in this case was ins uffici ent as a matt er of consti tution al due p roces s to con vict him of the crim es charged. See Jackson v. Virg inia, 443 US 307, 319 (197 9). This claim fails. (a) W he n e valua ting a cons titutional due pro cess ch allen ge to the s ufficienc y of the evide nce, “ the ev iden ce pres ented at t rial i s view ed in t he li ght most fav orable to the ve rdicts to d etermi ne

12 wheth er any rati onal trie r of f act cou ld have foun d the defen dant gui lty beyond a reas onable dou bt of al l the cri mes of whi ch he was convi cted. ” Johnson v. State, 316 Ga. 672, 680 (2023). “ I n making this determi nation, we d o not evaluat e witn ess cre dibili ty, res olve incons istenc ies in the evide nce, or asse ss the weight of the e vidence; these tasks are l eft to the sole disc retion o f the jury. ” Ridley v. State, 315 Ga. 452, 455 (2 023). “ The jury’s v erdict s will be upheld a s long as som e compete nt eviden ce, even if con tradi cted, supports each fac t necess ary to m ake out th e State ’ s cas e.” Co peland v. Sta te, 3 16 Ga. 452, 4 55 (202 3). Here, there was sufficie nt evide nce f or the j ury t o find Dempsey guilty of the crime s for which he w as convict ed. As noted above, w hen prop erly viewed in the light most fa vorab le to the verdic ts, the evidence presented at trial establi shed the fo llowing: Dempsey commun icated wi th Reyn olds via In stagram to a rrang e a drug d eal, a nd Rey nolds a nd Pendrak d id not tell anyone other than Dempsey tha t they would be at Sunset Pa rk at the tim e that the shoo ting occurred. After law en forc ement ar rived at the crime sc ene,

13 the polic e ca nine tracked from the crim e scene to the Amy Road hous e, wher e Demps ey had been prior t o the murd ers, as show n by the vide os that Dempsey posted of him self on In stagram. Dem psey ’s Instag ram accou nt also included vide os in whic h he was ho lding a Taurus 9mm handgun. An d, at the cri me scen e, investi gators recove red 9mm c artridge casi ngs. Additio nally, Dempsey con tacted Mil ler aft er the murders and sai d that he w as goin g to get “l ocked up” f or vio lating his pr obatio n, a nd Miller tol d Brown th at Dempsey commi tted th e murder s. Finally, t he jur y could inf er tha t Demp sey lied to i nvestigat ors and at tempt ed to des troy eviden ce on his cell pho ne in order to conce al his invo lvement in the murde rs. S ee Bates v. State, 317 Ga. 809, 8 16 (20 23) (noting that a de fendant ’ s lie to police allowe d the jury t o “infer t hat he was tr ying to hid e his own par ticipat ion” in a murder); Nunna lly v. State, 319 Ga. 701, 708 (20 24) (conc luding tha t the evi dence was suffici ent wh ere, among other thi ngs, t he defen dant “ attempted to delete call log s with [t he victim] f rom his phone to c onceal his guilt ”). Accord ingly, whe n viewe d in the light

14 most f avorabl e to the verd icts, th e evi dence presen ted at trial was suffi cient as a matt er of con stituti onal due pr ocess to authori ze a ration al jury t o find Dem psey guil ty beyond a reasonabl e doubt o f the cri mes for w hich he w as con vic ted. (b) Dempsey als o assert s that, aside fr om evi dence t hat h is Instag ram accou nt was u sed to faci litate the dr ug dea l with Pend rak and Re ynolds, t he evide nce in this case “was wea k circumstan tial evide nce of guil t.” To th e exten t that D empsey is a ssert ing a statut ory claim und er OCGA § 24 - 14 - 6, this ar gument a lso f ails. Unde r OCGA § 24 - 14 - 6, to supp ort a convicti on based on circum stantial evi dence, “ the p roved facts sh all not only be cons istent wit h the hypothesis of guilt, but shall e xclude e very other reas onable hypo thesis sa ve that of the guilt of the accused. ” OCGA § 24 - 14 - 6. Howev er, “ [n] ot ev ery hy pothesis is a reas onable one, an d the evi dence ne ed not exclu de every conceiv able in ference or hypoth esis, only the reason able ones. ” Bate s, 317 Ga. at 8 14 (quotati on mark s om itted). “Wheth er alte rnative hypotheses are reas onable is usually a quest ion for the jury, and this Court will not

15 distur b the jury ’ s finding unles s it is insuff icient as a matter of law. ” Drenno n v. Sta te, 31 4 Ga. 854, 862 (2022) (clean ed up). A s an initia l matte r, Dempsey “ has failed to identify a ny spec ific alt ernative hypothe sis that, in his es timation, the Sta te failed to di sprov e. ” Weston v. State, 320 Ga. 472, 474 (2024). Inst ead, Dempsey argues th at he wa s not i dentified by any eyewi tnesse s or connec ted by an y ph ysical evi dence to the scen e of th e murd ers, an d that his guilt “wa s base d substa ntially o n evidenc e that his Instag ram accou nt was used to fac ilitate the drug dea l that pre ceded the tw o death s.” But Dem psey’s com plaints regardin g the Stat e’s eviden ce are unpersua sive becaus e, “ alth ough the State is requir ed to pr ove its c ase wi th competen t e vidence, there is no requi rement that it prove i ts case wi th any pa rticu lar sort of ev idence. ” Rodriguez v. State, 309 G a. 542, 5 46 (202 0). We c onclude that the evi dence pres ented at tri al, even if circum stantial, was suff icient to su pport Dem psey ’s convi ctions as a matter of Georgi a statut ory law. As recount ed above, the evide nce est ablished, among othe r things, th at Dempsey com muni cated with

16 Reyn olds t o arran ge a d rug deal; Reyn olds an d P endrak did no t tell anyon e other tha n Dempsey that they would b e at Sun set Park at the tim e that th e murders occur red; and De mpsey told Mille r in the morni ng hours af ter the murd ers th at he wa s going to get “locke d up” f or violating his prob ation. Moreover, based on D emps ey’s incons istent stat ements to i nvesti gators and the ch anges made to accoun ts on Dem psey’s ph one afte r the murders, the jur y could infer that Dempsey lied to i nvesti gators an d destroyed e viden ce be cause of conscious ne ss of guilt. Se e B ate s, 317 Ga. at 816. Ac cordingly, becaus e t he evidence was leg ally su fficient to exclude ev ery reason able hyp othesis other than Dempsey’s guilt, this claim f ails. See Martin v. St ate, 316 G a. 154, 156 (2 023) (hold ing that evid ence was suf ficie nt under OCGA § 24 - 14 -6 where it showed, am ong oth er things, that t he defend ant arranged a me eting vi a text m essage wi th the victim p rior to th e vi ctim’s mu rder). 2. Dem psey als o argues that the trial court abused its discr etion by ad mitting evidence th at he was on proba tion at the time of the murd ers. Before tri al, the Stat e moved t o admit ev idence

17 showing that, at the tim e of th e mu rders, Dem psey was on p robation for p ossession of a we apon in side a public s chool. Aft er a pre - trial hearin g, the t rial court rul ed th at t he St ate was pe rmitted to presen t eviden ce showi ng th at Dempsey w as on prob ation when the murders occurr ed be cause such evi dence w as relevan t, bu t the St ate wa s pro hibited fro m introduc ing evidence abo ut th e ch arge for which Dempsey was on proba tion. At tr ial, the j ury heard the foll owin g evidence related to Dempsey ’s probati on. Sergeant P ierson t estifi ed that, after lear ning from s chool offici als th at Dem psey goes b y “ EJ,” Sergean t Pie rson “found out [Demp sey] was on prob ation” and “talk ed to [Demp sey’s ] prob ation office r.” 9 Add itionally, in Demps ey’s firs t interv iew w ith inv estigators, w hen Se rgean t Pierson asked Dem psey if he had an Instag ram accou nt, Dempsey init ially cla imed that h e had to d elete his “Instag ram” for hi s “probat ion.” Throu ghout bot h of Demps ey’s inter view s wit h investig ators, his probat ion status was r eferen ced ————————————————————— 9 At trial, Se rgeant Pierson did not te stify about th e content of t hat conversation.

18 multiple times, primar ily by De mpsey and his grandmo ther, b ut the reda cted inte rviews did not include any deta ils concer ning the charge for which he was on pro bation. Fina lly, Mill er tes tified t hat, around 1 1:00 a.m. on the day of th e murders, D emps ey said that h e was goi ng to get “locked up” f or vi olating his probati on. On app eal, D empsey argues that th e trial court abused i ts discre tion in a dmitt ing this probation - sta tus evidence at trial becaus e it was not rel evant un der OCGA § 24 -4- 401 (“Ru le 401”) and shou ld hav e been excl uded under OCGA § 24 -4- 403 (“R ule 403”) and OCGA § 24 -4- 404(b) (“Ru le 404(b)”). B eca use t he prob ation - sta tus eviden ce was both relev ant and intr insic to the cri mes charg ed, th e tria l court did not a buse it s discret ion in ad mitting it, and t his cla im fails. See Venturino v. State, 306 Ga. 391, 393 (2019) (“We revi ew a trial c ourt ’ s evi dentiary ruli ngs under an abu se of dis cretion standa rd of review. ” (quotati on marks omitted)). E videnc e is releva nt if it ha s “ any ten dency to make th e existen ce of any fact that is of cons equenc e to the determ ination of the act ion more pro bable or less probable than it woul d be withou t

19 the evi dence.” O CGA § 24 -4- 401. And w e have exp lained t hat eviden ce is admi ssible as intrins ic eviden ce, rathe r than extri nsic eviden ce subject to Rul e 404(b), w hen i t is “ an unchar ged a ct ar ising from th e same transac tion or s eri es of t rans action s as th e cha rged offen se, n ecessary to comple te the story of the crim e, or i nextricabl y intertw ined wit h the ev idence of the charg ed offen se. ” Keller v. State, 308 Ga. 492, 50 5 (2020) (qu otation mark s omitted). In app lying this test, w e have s aid that e vidence rela ting to “ the ch ain of events ” t hat expla ins “ the con text, mo tive, and set - up o f the cri me is p rope rly admit ted if it is linke d in time and c ircumsta nces with the charged crime, or form s an integ ral and n atural par t of an account of the crime, or is nec essary to complete the s tory o f the cri me for t he jury.” Heade v. State, 31 2 Ga. 19, 25 (202 1). Mor eover, “ this so rt of int rinsic evide nce rema ins admis sible even if it incid entally pla ces the defen dant ’ s char acter at i ssue. ” Kel ler, 30 8 Ga. at 5 05. In th is cas e, the evid ence reg ardin g Dempsey’ s probati on status was pro perly admi tted by th e trial cou rt becau se it was b ot h relevan t and intrinsic to t he c rimes ch arged. The evide nce sho wed

20 that, when Sergean t Pierson i nter viewed Dem psey for th e first tim e, Demps ey initia lly cla imed t hat he de leted his “Insta gram” prior to the mu rders becaus e of his “p robat ion.” But inve stigators subse quent ly discove red that Dempsey’s “popsh otsej” accoun t was delet ed in the early mor ning hours after th e murders. Ad ditiona lly, thro ughout both of D emps ey’s inter views with inve stiga tors, Dempsey ’s descr iption o f how and why he used t he “pops hotse j” Instagram accou nt — which linke d him to th e murders — ch anged, and at one poin t, he even all eged that the “popshot s_ej” account had bee n “h acked” prior t o the mur ders. Based on the se shifting expla natio ns, t he jury could infer that Dempsey actual ly had control of his Instag ram accou nt during the pe rtinent t ime per iod and that he li ed about the reason for d eletin g it. See Bates, 317 Ga. at 816; Jenki ns v. Stat e, 313 G a. 81, 89 (2022) (“[T]he fact of an accused’ s … conceal ment ... i s admiss ible as eviden ce of cons ciou sness of gu ilt for the c harged off ense, a nd thus of guilt itself.” (clea ned up)). In add ition, the o ther, brief referen ces to Dempsey’s pro bation s tatus — whi ch were admi tted throu gh testi mony f rom Se rgeant Pi erson and

21 Miller a s well as Dempsey ’s t wo inter views with inve stigat ors — arose in the con text o f demon stratin g the progr ession of the m urder invest igatio n. Accord ingly, becaus e the evid ence regardin g Dempsey ’s prob ation sta tus was relevant and “ inextric ably inter twined ” w it h the oth er e vidence demons trating his invo lvement in the mur der s, the evi dence w as pro perly admit ted as intr insic. Se e Heade, 312 Ga. at 25. However, “ [e ] ven when e videnc e is int rinsic, … it must als o sat isfy Rule 403. ” Harri s v. State, 310 Ga. 372, 377 (202 0) (quotation marks omitted). “Under Rule 403, relev ant eviden ce may neverth eless be ex cluded if its probativ e value is subst antiall y outwei ghed by th e danger of un fair prej udice. ” Jackson v. State, 317 Ga. 95, 102 (2023) (quotati on marks omitt ed). I n its ruling on Dempsey ’s motio n for a n ew trial, the t rial c ourt noted that “[n]o witn ess or pa rty u sed [the p robation - status eviden ce] to impugn [Demps ey’s] characte r or urge th e jury to con sider impro per matters, ” and th e trial court concluded tha t “the admis sion of [the proba tion - status evidence ] was pr oper and d id not r esult in any

22 unfair prejud ice.” We agre e. Here, th e ref erenc es to Dem psey ’s proba tion s tatus were brief, and the jury w as never told why Dempsey was on proba tion. Theref ore, it is not likely t hat the j ury convi cted Demps ey solely be cause of hi s proba tion status. Se e Coleman v. Stat e, 321 Ga. 476, 481 (2025) (concluding th e trial court did no t abuse its discret ion in admitt ing evi dence of th e defend ant’s prior drug use w here, among o ther thing s, it wa s “ not like ly that t he jury im properly c onvi cted [th e defendan t] based s olely on evidence of her p revious [drug us e]”). For t hese reason s, the prob ative v alue of the pr obation - stat us eviden ce was n ot substantia lly outwe ighed by th e danger of un fair prejudi ce. See Huf f v. State, 299 Ga. 80 1, 805 (201 6) (deter mining the trial court did not abuse i ts dis cretion wher e it fo und that the proba tive valu e of testim ony from th e defen dant ’s proba tion off ice r was not subs tanti ally outw eighed by its prej udicial effec t). Accord ingly, the trial court di d not abuse i ts disc retion b y admitti ng eviden ce that Dempsey was on p robati on at th e time of the murders. Judgment a ffir med. All the Justices concu r.