Local News

Man Sought on Murder Charge in Death of '99 Shooting Victim

Posted February 6, 2008

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Police on Wednesday were searching for a man who has served time for assault in a 1999 drive-by shooting but who now faces a murder charge because the victim died last month.

A grand jury Monday indicted Michael Rashad Kee, 29, in the June 14, 1999, shooting of 16-year-old Candace Mitchell.

Mitchell was riding with four friends in a van on Barton Street when several shots were fired from outside the van. Investigators said she wasn't the intended target.

She was shot in the head and had been in a coma until she died from complications of her injury on Jan. 24.

Kee served more than six years in prison after he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill for shooting Mitchell.

Durham County Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline said, however, that it is important to re-charge someone when the victim's status changes, even though it's almost nine years after the crime.

"He has not been punished for the taking of a life. That's totally different than surviving an assault," Cline said. "You have to take into account the victim's family, charge for the correct crime and look at what the statute requires the punishment to be."

State law changed about 10 years ago, she said, allowing the state to prosecute for murder so long after the victim's condition changed. Until that time, law only allowed for such a charge up to a year and a day later.

Kee is described as black, 5 feet, 11 inches tall and 270 pounds. His last known address was on Sprucewood Drive.

Anyone with information on his whereabouts is asked to call the Durham Police Department at 919-560-4440 or Crime Stoppers at 919-683-1200.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • wralfan Feb 6, 2008

    If there were fragments of a bullet lodged in her brain that shifted causing her to die... that would be related to the crime.

  • Lblum Feb 6, 2008

    My understanding would be it is a new charge. First one was assault in 1999 because of the shooting. This time would be for murder because she just died 01/24/08. Mind you, this is what I am guessing.

  • raleighcal Feb 6, 2008

    I would have to disagree with this. He should have served a longer prison term to begin with. How can you bring him back in 9 years later?

  • Lblum Feb 6, 2008

    The way I read it is that he was found guilty of assault following the shooting and served 6 years in prison for that. She died this year which would now enable authorities to charge him with murder. I would think though in order to charge him with murder, they would have to prove her death is a direct result from the shooting...particularly since it has been 9 years.

  • Dr. Dataclerk Feb 6, 2008

    myself: I agree with you. Since all that time this guy could be anywhere even out of state. I really like to have more details. Something do not sound right.

  • myself Feb 6, 2008

    I'm confused too. So, she died 9 years later and now they want to charge him with murder? Sounds like he already served time for the shooting itself. 9 years seems like a long time to pass. I wonder what the details are, how they can say it was the shooting that killed her...

  • wildatheart99 Feb 6, 2008

    Was she in the hospital from 1999 until this year???? Im not understanding this. If so what a large bill!! YIKES! Sorry about the family's loss. My prayers go out to the family.