The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

TWO women convicted of murdering a teenage mother more than four years ago have launched appeals against their convictions.

Zaria Burrows and Dervinque Edwards were sentenced to 28 years in prison last June after they were found guilty of the 19-year-old’s death in January 2018.

The two women were the last of six women who were convicted and subsequently sentenced in connection with Breanna Mackey’s murder after rejecting plea deals.

During a virtual hearing before Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs, and Carolita Bethell, attorneys Marianne Cadet and Jairam Mangra — who represent Edwards and Burrows — informed the panel of their clients’ intention to appeal their convictions.

The basis of their arguments is that the women never intended to cause harm or kill Mackey on the day in question and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the women were guilty of the offence.

“M’lords, we submit that there is no evidence that the crime was committed by the appellant although the appellants admit to being in the vehicle. Her case was that there was no plan to hurt or kill the deceased and that she never exited the vehicle. She did not participate in harming or attacking the deceased,” Ms Cadet said.

“We submit, m’lords, that a plan should be supported by facts and there was evidence which the prosecution presented to say ‘well there was a plan to hurt’. It was the prosecution’s case to say that these ladies were in the vehicle and their intention was to go and attack the deceased, but there was no evidence of that,” the attorney said.

The attorney said the Crown prosecutor alleged that her client had knowledge of the weapon used to bring about Mackey’s death beforehand.

However, Ms Cadet insisted this was not the case, pointing to a police interview where Edwards had denied seeing the knife on Thea Williams, one of Mackey’s attackers, prior to her getting out of the vehicle.

“The learned judge failed to indicate to the jury the importance of when the appellant became aware of the knife and we also say that the judge failed to indicate to the jury that the prosecution’s witness, Vonzell Mckenzie, stated that it was when Thea arrived near the deceased where she had fallen that she took out her knife and stabbed her,” she said.

“The reason this was so essential is because the prosecution relied on two witnesses m’lord whose evidence was materially contradicting each other and although (one of the witnesses’) evidence was that they came out of the car armed, Vonzell McKenzie’s evidence was that it was when Thea arrived at the deceased that she took it out which is also consistent with what the appellant said,” the attorney argued.

Similar arguments were also articulated by Burrows’ attorney, Mr Mangra, who told the court his client was contesting on the grounds the evidence in the case did not support the conviction.

“Firstly, the evidence clearly does not support a conviction considering, firstly, the issue of joint enterprise which is the plank on which the prosecution has presented its case. Besides (my client) not leaving the car, there is no evidence of any plan prior to them arriving at the scene because they did not go in search looking for Breanna. They did not go looking for it. It just happened that by chance she was seen,” he said.

“Once they had left the car, there is no evidence that Burrows had any knowledge of what the other girls intended to do, first of all. There was no discussion, there was no planning and there was no contemplation at all.”

A witness testified that Mackey was walking along Key West Street when Burrows sped after Mackey with her car, almost knocking her down in an attempt to prevent her from fleeing the impending attack.

However, yesterday, Mr Mangra said: “The car drove behind Breanna who was being pursued by the other girls. Breanna slipped and fell when the car came up close to her. It was almost simultaneous when it happened… so there is nexus, I would submit, between the driver and her mental state of mind that link her to what the other girls were doing… and there was no evidence of joint enterprise involving the appellant.”

Notwithstanding the appellants’ argument, attorney Cassie Bethel, who represents the Crown in the case, maintained the prosecution’s position.

Having listened to all arguments, Sir Michael Barnett told the appellants that they would be informed of the court’s judgment when a decision is made.

He also asked the attorneys to provide the court with written submissions on what sentence they would deem appropriate for manslaughter if the panel considered reducing the verdict from murder.