Thomas Stewart was remembered as generous and well known on his block as prosecutors laid out allegations against a teenage defendant.
MUSKEGON, Mich. — In the days after Thomas Stewart was shot to death inside his home, neighbors and relatives described the 73-year-old as warm, generous and known to many on his block. Months later, prosecutors say a 16-year-old defendant’s phone and statements helped explain how Stewart died.
The story matters in Muskegon not only because of the severity of the charges but because the victim was publicly remembered as a trusted older neighbor whose home became the scene of a robbery and killing. Police say Kemaree Davis, now charged as an adult with open murder and armed robbery, knew Stewart and went to the house to rob him. The prosecution’s account has since expanded through testimony about texts, surveillance video and an alleged confession, while a second teen connected to the case has faced separate legal trouble.
Stewart’s death first entered public view as a neighborhood tragedy. Officers were called to his residence in the 1400 block of Jiroch Street at about 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 1, 2025, after a report of a shooting. They found Stewart inside with a gunshot wound to his upper body, and he died at the scene. Family and friends who spoke afterward did not talk first about court filings or charging language. They talked about a man they said would help people, speak to neighbors and move through the community with ease. His son said Stewart’s life was larger than the brief crime snapshot that would come to define him in headlines. That early wave of grief shaped the case before police ever named a suspect. It also framed later statements by investigators, who said Stewart was friendly, knew many people nearby and may have recognized the person who came into his home that morning.
When police announced an arrest about a week later, the case turned from mourning to accusation. Authorities said a 16-year-old had been taken into custody after fleeing from a traffic stop and would be charged as an adult. A 17-year-old was also arrested and accused of possessing a firearm, though he was not initially charged with Stewart’s killing. Public Safety Director Tim Kozal said detectives believed Stewart likely knew the younger suspect and that the motive appeared to be robbery. The details at the scene supported that theory, investigators said, because Stewart’s wallet was found near his body and his pockets had been turned out. Even then, police said the firearm believed to have been used had not been recovered. The prosecution’s later account went further, alleging that Davis told police Stewart saw him inside the house, gave him $20 and was then shot when the gun went off during the robbery. Investigators said Davis also admitted taking another $20 from Stewart’s wallet after the shooting.
By the time the case reached a preliminary examination, the public had a sharper sense of the evidence prosecutors planned to rely on. A detective testified that Davis allegedly sent a message about an hour after the shooting that said, “The old man is dead. Bro, I watched him gasp his last breath.” Authorities said the message was sent to the 17-year-old tied to the weapons case. Investigators also said surveillance footage showed the two teens meeting near Muskegon High School that morning and walking toward Stewart’s home. The older teen later gave testimony that, according to published accounts, conflicted with investigators’ version of events. He said he did not remember meeting Davis and denied knowledge of several social media accounts linked to his phone. After the hearing, he was reportedly arrested on a perjury allegation, an unusual development that deepened the sense that the case was still widening around the original homicide charge.
The legal stakes are substantial, but so is the local context around the victim. Stewart’s killing landed as a deeply personal case in a city where older residents often remain fixtures of the neighborhoods they helped shape. Police comments suggested that familiarity, not random entry, may explain how the suspect got inside the home. That detail has mattered because it places the fatal encounter inside a relationship, however loose, rather than at the edge of a forced break-in. It also helps explain why the case drew such strong reaction from people who knew Stewart or knew of him. Still, there are gaps in the public account. Reports do not fully resolve who first proposed the robbery, whether the second teen knew a killing might occur, or whether prosecutors will seek a specific degree of homicide as the case moves ahead. What is clear is that Stewart’s public identity as a caring, recognizable neighbor has remained central to how Muskegon understands the crime.
That makes the final shape of the prosecution more than a matter of court scheduling. Davis is accused as an adult, which places him in a legal posture far more severe than a juvenile delinquency case and raises the possibility of a life-altering sentence if he is convicted of murder. Open murder and armed robbery charges remain the backbone of the case. The 17-year-old’s weapons charge and reported perjury arrest form a second track that may continue to influence what prosecutors can prove about planning, participation and what happened after the shooting. Future hearings will determine whether the evidence is sufficient to bind the homicide case over for additional proceedings. For Stewart’s family and neighbors, though, the case has already done something formal court language cannot capture: it has forced a community to hold two versions of the same man at once, one in memory and one in evidence.
As the court process continues, Stewart’s killing remains both a criminal case and a neighborhood loss. The next milestone is further action in Muskegon County court, where prosecutors will keep testing whether their evidence can carry the case toward trial.
Author note: Last updated April 7, 2026.