By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal has dismissed Marcello McKenzie’s challenge to his murder conviction and 35-year sentence, ruling that a web of circumstantial evidence, anchored by a .45 pistol found in his white Daihatsu van minutes after the shooting, was sufficient for a jury to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

A panel of Justice Charles, Justice Turner, and Acting Justice Hilton delivered the judgment on October 15 after hearings spanning several dates. Ryszard Humes appeared for McKenzie, while Erica Duncombe-Ingraham represented the Director of Public Prosecutions.

McKenzie was convicted by a jury on May 31, 2023 of murdering Godfrey Sawyer Gideon, who was shot on his porch in Nassau Village around 11pm on June 28, 2020. He was sentenced on September 5, 2023 to 35 years in prison.

The prosecution had no eyewitness identification of McKenzie at the scene. Instead, officers stopped his white Daihatsu Hijet roughly 35 minutes after the shooting and recovered a .45 pistol hidden in a bag with his plumbing tools. A forensic expert later matched three spent casings from the scene to that weapon. McKenzie owned and drove the van. His passenger, Jamal Armbrister, was identified by an eyewitness as one of two men fleeing the yard. McKenzie denied knowledge of the gun, remained silent at trial, and called no witnesses.

Investigators also produced the deceased’s phone records showing two incoming calls from McKenzie at about 8.25pm and 9.25pm that night, along with videos from Armbrister’s phone recorded after 10pm at a Talbot Street residence and disseminated shortly before 11pm, placing the men in the area.

McKenzie advanced six grounds of appeal, led by a complaint that the trial judge erred in rejecting his no-case submission. He also argued that the verdict was unsafe, that the judge failed to give a Turnbull warning on identification, misdirected the jury on joint enterprise, and did not properly warn them about previous inconsistent statements by witnesses.

The Court of Appeal rejected each argument. It held that the combination of circumstances — the matched firearm in McKenzie’s van among his tools, his ownership and control of the vehicle, proximity in time and place to the shooting, and his association with Armbrister — provided evidence on which a properly directed jury could convict. The judges said that discrepancies in eyewitness testimony went to weight, not admissibility.

The court also noted that where a firearm is found in a privately operated vehicle, section 8A of the Firearms Act deems the person in control to be in possession unless they can prove otherwise. McKenzie offered no plausible explanation for how the gun ended up in a bag with his plumbing tools, so the inference of knowledge and control was open to the jury.

The judges found that a Turnbull warning was unnecessary because the case against McKenzie did not depend on visual identification. Only Armbrister was identified, and he was not on trial. The Crown’s case against McKenzie was wholly circumstantial.

They also ruled that the trial judge properly explained joint enterprise, ensuring the jury understood they had to be sure McKenzie participated in a common plan with Armbrister to kill the victim. The court said the directions on inconsistent statements and witness credibility were clear, balanced, and case-specific.