Starling v. State (Majority, with Dissenting)
Annotate this CaseAppellant was convicted of first-degree murder and committing a terroristic act. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to a total term of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and granted his attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant’s motions for directed verdict; (2) the circuit court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless manslaughter; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence about the victim’s past involvement in drug transactions and his reputation as a drug dealer; and (4) Appellant’s pro se challenges were not properly raised on appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.