In January 2023, the Montgomery County Grand Jury issued a four-count indictment charging Miracle A’sha Bailey (“Defendant Bailey”) and Robert Jaylen Holland (“Defendant Holland”) with first degree premeditated murder (Count 1), evading arrest in an automobile causing a risk of death or serious bodily injury (Count 2), and theft of property valued at more than $10,000 (Count 3). Defendant Holland was also charged with evading arrest (Count 4). Following a joint trial, the jury convicted Defendant Bailey of first degree premeditated murder and the lesser-included offenses of evading arrest in an automobile in Count 2 and joyriding in Count 3, for which the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. The jury convicted Defendant Holland of first degree premeditated murder, evading arrest in an automobile causing a risk of death or serious bodily injury, the lesser-included offense of joyriding in Count 3, and evading arrest, for which the trial court imposed an effective life sentence.
On appeal, Defendant Bailey contends that (1) the trial court erred by admitting a detective’s body camera recording of a doorbell camera video; (2) the chain of custody for her cell phone and the victim’s cell phone was insufficiently established; (3) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs; (4) the trial court erred by finding that the automobile’s owner was not a material witness; (5) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity; and (6) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight. For his part, Defendant Holland contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for first degree premeditated murder; (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity and by issuing an “inaccurate” instruction on flight; (3) his right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial court allowed an expert witness to testify who did not perform the gunshot residue (“GSR”) testing; and (4) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs. After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable case law, we affirm. We also determine that there is a clerical error in Defendant Holland’s judgment form in Count 2 and remand for entry of a corrected judgment.