Police say a fatal robbery inside Thomas Stewart’s home became a case assembled through scene evidence, surveillance and alleged messages.
MUSKEGON, Mich. — What began as a morning shooting call at a house on Jiroch Street has evolved into a murder prosecution against a 16-year-old, with investigators saying scene evidence, surveillance footage and a reported text message link him to the death of Thomas Stewart.
The importance of the case lies in how quickly police moved from a single violent scene to a more developed theory of robbery, identification and alleged confession. Stewart, 73, was found dead inside his home on Dec. 1, 2025. Within about a week, authorities had arrested Kemaree Davis and charged him as an adult with open murder and armed robbery. Later court testimony added crucial details: investigators said Stewart’s pockets had been turned out, the suspect met another teen before the shooting, and a message sent afterward described Stewart’s final moments. Together, those details have given the public a step-by-step picture of how prosecutors say the crime unfolded.
The first step was the emergency response. At about 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 1, officers from the Muskegon Department of Public Safety were sent to a residence in the 1400 block of Jiroch Street after a report that a man had been shot. Inside, they found Stewart with a wound to his upper body. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Investigators almost immediately noticed details that suggested more than a sudden dispute. Police said Stewart’s wallet was near his body and his pockets had been turned inside out. That evidence pointed detectives toward robbery as a possible motive and shaped the early direction of the inquiry. Authorities have also said publicly that there was reason to think Stewart knew the person who entered the house, a point that matters because it suggests the fatal encounter may have begun with a familiar face rather than a forced break-in. For neighbors, that possibility made the crime feel especially close and unsettling.
The second step was identification. Police said that on Dec. 8 they spotted a vehicle they believed was connected to the killing. When officers tried to stop it, two teens ran, and authorities later caught them with help from other law enforcement agencies. One was a 16-year-old whom prosecutors later identified as Davis. The other was a 17-year-old who, according to police, faced a separate firearm charge. At a news briefing after the arrest, Public Safety Director Tim Kozal said investigators believed Stewart likely knew Davis and that the motive appeared to be robbery. He also said detectives did not believe anyone other than Stewart and the suspect had been inside the residence when the shooting happened. Even then, investigators acknowledged gaps. The weapon had not been recovered, and police were still trying to determine the full relationship between Stewart and the accused teen. Those unanswered questions did not stop the case from advancing, but they left important parts of the timeline open.
The third step came through electronic evidence and police interviews. Prosecutors later said surveillance footage showed Davis and the 17-year-old meeting outside Muskegon High School on the morning Stewart was killed and walking toward the victim’s home. A detective then testified that about an hour after the shooting, Davis sent a message saying, “The old man is dead. Bro, I watched him gasp his last breath.” Prosecutors said the message went to the 17-year-old. In a later police interview, according to investigators, Davis admitted he was inside the house, said Stewart saw him and gave him $20, and claimed the gun went off during the robbery. He also allegedly said he took another $20 from Stewart’s wallet afterward. Those statements, if accepted, help prosecutors bridge the gap between the physical scene and the suspect’s intent. Still, the public record does not fully resolve whether the shooting was accidental, as Davis reportedly suggested, or whether prosecutors will argue it shows a stronger form of intent tied to murder during a robbery.
The fourth step has been the courtroom fight over credibility. The 17-year-old connected to the case reportedly testified at a preliminary examination in a way that contradicted investigators on several points. He said he did not remember meeting Davis and denied knowledge of social media accounts tied to his phone. After the hearing, he was reportedly arrested on a perjury allegation. That development underscored how much the prosecution may rely on digital records, message traffic and conflicting witness accounts as the case moves forward. It also showed that the investigation had not ended with the arrest. Cases like this often continue to widen after charges are filed as prosecutors test witness statements against phone data, video and forensic evidence. What remains unknown publicly includes whether the firearm has been found, whether prosecutors believe the robbery was planned in advance with help from others, and what defense lawyers may argue about the alleged admissions described by police.
The final step, at least for now, is the long legal process ahead. Davis faces open murder and armed robbery charges as an adult, meaning the case will proceed in a forum with far higher consequences than a juvenile matter. Stewart’s family and neighbors have already made clear that the case is not only about what police can prove. It is also about the abrupt loss of a man they described as generous, familiar and deeply rooted in the neighborhood. That dual reality has followed every stage of the investigation: one track in evidence, one in grief. As prosecutors continue presenting their timeline, judges will decide whether the case is ready to move closer to trial.
The case now stands at the point where investigators have sketched a full theory, but the courts must test it. The next milestone is additional action in Muskegon County court as the prosecution works to carry its timeline from allegation to proof.
Author note: Last updated April 7, 2026.