Kam v. State

── Kam v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26A0215 Phun Kam v. The State On Appeal from the Superior Court of DeKalb County No. 21CR2697-1 Decided: May 19, 2026 LAND, Justice. Phun Kam appeals his 2024 convictions for malice murder and related charges stemming from the shooting death of Hrin Thawng. 1 Kam argues that the evidence was constitutionally in- sufficient to support his convictions, the trial court abused its dis- 1 The crimes took place on May 9, 2021. On August 3, 2021, a DeKalb County grand jury indicted Kam for malice murder (Count 1), felony murder (Count 2), aggravated assault (Count 3), and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony (Count 4). Kam’s first trial, from August 28 to Septem- ber 6, 2023, ended in a hung jury. After Kam’s second trial, from March 25 to March 28, 2024, a jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts of the indict- ment. Kam was sentenced to life in prison for Count 1 and 5 years in prison for Count 4 (which was suspended but was to be served consecutive to Count 1). Count 2 was vacated by operation of law and Count 3 was merged with Count 1. Kam filed a timely motion for new trial on April 29, 2024, and amended that motion through new counsel on May 19, 2025. After a hearing, the trial court denied the amended motion for new trial on July 2, 2025, and Kam filed a timely notice of appeal. Kam’s appeal was docketed to the term of this Court beginning in December 2025 and submitted for a decision on the briefs. cretion in admitting Kam’s statement at the time of his arrest be- cause he was not fluent in English, the trial court erred in not holding a hearing and not making the required findings before ordering Kam shackled during trial, the trial court abused its dis- cretion in not allowing a forensic pathologist to testify as to Thawng’s blood alcohol content, and the verdict form violated due process because it incorrectly negated a possible voluntary man- slaughter verdict. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. The evidence presented at trial showed as follows. Kam and Thawng worked together and lived in the same apartment complex. The two men would frequently drink alcohol together. Kam testified that Thawng would act “crazy” when he was drunk and described a fight that occurred in the year before the shooting where Thawng was “tipsy” and stabbed Kam with a knife.2 De- spite this, Kam still described Thawng as his “best friend.” Kam testified that the day before the murder, on May 8, 2021, Kam and Thawng drank beers in Thawng’s apartment be- fore going to Sawkyaw Phone’s apartment to drink more beer. 3 Phone testified that Kam and Thawng appeared to have an argu- ment at his apartment before both men left. Phone testified that Thawng did not appear to be drunk, although Kam testified that he went home because Thawng was drunk and Kam was w