Kam v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Kam’s convictions for malice murder and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. It held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient, Kam’s post-arrest statement was voluntarily given after a valid waiver of Miranda rights, and any error concerning shackling or exclusion of blood-alcohol evidence was harmless. The court also rejected Kam’s unpreserved challenge to the verdict form because he failed to establish plain error.