Thomas Stewart was fighting cancer when he was killed, but relatives told the court his generosity, not his illness, defined him.
MUSKEGON, Mich. — Nearly 10 months after Thomas Stewart was found shot to death inside his home, his family entered a Muskegon courtroom to describe the 73-year-old not as a crime statistic or a cancer patient, but as the man many knew as “Uncle Tommy.” Their statements came as 16-year-old Kemaree Davis was sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison for Stewart’s killing, bringing a measure of legal finality to a case that began with the death of one of the neighborhood’s familiar helping hands.
The sentencing on Sept. 22 gave Stewart’s relatives their clearest public opportunity to put his life ahead of the details of his death. His son Terrance Stewart said his father had been battling cancer and had dropped to about 100 pounds by the time he was killed. Yet the family described a man who still set expectations for his children and urged them to accomplish their goals. Police had offered a similar account months earlier, saying Stewart knew many people around the neighborhood, was friendly with them and often tried to help. That reputation also became relevant to investigators trying to understand how the teenager accused of robbing him came to be inside his home.
Terrance Stewart told the court that his father consistently challenged his children to be their best. Dalrecus Stewart, another son, approached the hearing from a different direction. He said he had imagined the person responsible for killing his father as someone who would appear obviously evil, only to see a teenager when Davis appeared before the court. Dalrecus said the lessons his father gave him prevented him from giving himself over to hatred. The comments placed two families in the same courtroom under starkly different circumstances: one mourning an elderly father, the other watching a 16-year-old face decades in state custody.
Only after those statements did the legal numbers put a formal measure on the case. Muskegon County Circuit Judge Matthew R. Kacel imposed a minimum term of 20 years and a maximum of 60 years for the murder conviction. Davis had entered a no-contest plea in August. He also received sentences of two years for felony firearm use and two to five years for carrying a concealed weapon, according to reports describing the court record. The weapons terms were ordered to run concurrently. Davis received 288 days of jail credit on those offenses, but reports said that time was not credited against the murder sentence.
Davis’ path to that hearing began on the morning of Dec. 1, 2025. At about 9:30 a.m., officers were called to the 1400 block of Jiroch Street after a report that a man had been shot. They found Stewart inside the residence with a gunshot wound to his upper body and pronounced him dead at the scene. His wallet was near his body and his pockets had been pulled out, investigators said. From the early stages of the case, police viewed those circumstances as signs of a robbery. They also believed Stewart knew the person who had been inside with him rather than being attacked by a complete stranger.
That belief matched what authorities already knew about Stewart’s place in the neighborhood. Muskegon Public Safety Director Tim Kozal said after the arrest that Stewart was acquainted with many people, was friendly with them and was known for helping others. Investigators believed only Stewart and the shooter were inside the residence during the fatal encounter. Police said Davis knew him, and surveillance evidence tied the teenager to the home. The possibility that Stewart had admitted someone he recognized into his residence made his reputation for openness more than a character detail; it helped investigators frame the relationship between the victim and the suspect.
Investigators arrested Davis about a week after the killing. Police said he had entered the home intending to rob Stewart. During an interview after his arrest, Davis allegedly told investigators that Stewart discovered him inside and gave him $20. Davis said the gun then went off, according to testimony later described in court reports. He also admitted taking another $20 from Stewart’s wallet after the shooting, investigators said. Whatever dispute might have existed over how the gun was fired, the prosecution’s account placed the encounter within an intended robbery, supported by the condition of Stewart’s pockets and wallet as well as Davis’ statements.
The investigation also reached beyond the house. Detectives obtained surveillance footage that they said showed Davis meeting a 17-year-old outside Muskegon High School on the morning of the killing before the two moved in the direction of Stewart’s neighborhood. About an hour after the shooting, investigators said, Davis messaged that teenager. The communication stated that Stewart was dead and described watching him take his final breaths. A detective presented the message during a preliminary examination in March, making it a key part of the evidence publicly associated with the case. The 17-year-old separately faced a weapons accusation and was later arrested on a perjury allegation after testimony that authorities said conflicted with their evidence.
By then, Davis was already in the adult court system. Police announced in December that prosecutors were charging him as an adult with open murder. Later reporting on his plea and sentencing identified the murder conviction as second-degree murder. Michigan law specifically lists second-degree murder among the crimes for which a juvenile who is convicted must be sentenced in the same manner as an adult. The state’s second-degree murder statute allows punishment of life imprisonment or any term of years. Kacel’s sentence therefore made Davis eligible to spend much of his adulthood in prison, with 20 years set as the minimum portion of the murder term.
The legal framework, however, did not erase the unusual contrast that Stewart’s son described in court. The defendant was a child in the legal sense when the crime occurred, while Stewart was an older man weakened by cancer. Davis’ youth had been evident throughout the case, from police statements lamenting youth violence to the decision to prosecute him through the adult system. Stewart’s age and illness were equally visible at sentencing. But the evidence presented by investigators centered not simply on that age difference; it centered on the robbery, the gunshot, the property taken afterward, the surveillance record and the messages prosecutors said followed the killing.
When Davis was allowed to address Stewart’s family, he apologized and acknowledged the kind and caring person they had lost. He said he would live with remorse for what had happened. The statement came months after prosecutors introduced the much harsher message they said Davis sent shortly after Stewart died. Sentencing hearings often place a defendant’s later words beside the record of the offense, and Davis’ remarks became part of that final court proceeding. Stewart’s relatives, meanwhile, did not use their time only to condemn him. Their statements repeatedly turned the focus back toward the father and neighbor they wanted the court to remember.
The family’s description also gave context to the comments Kozal made when police first announced an arrest. The public safety director had called attention to the growing involvement of young people in violence and said the community needed to address it. But in speaking specifically about Stewart, Kozal emphasized a different kind of neighborhood connection: an older resident who knew people, welcomed people and helped people. The homicide brought those two realities together in one case, with a teenager accused of exploiting access to a man known for being approachable and generous.
Stewart’s death is now the subject of a completed plea and sentence rather than a pending murder prosecution. Davis remains bound by the 20-to-60-year murder term and the related weapons sentences imposed by the circuit court. For Stewart’s family, the end of that stage of the case leaves a record that extends beyond the crime-scene details and the prison term: a 73-year-old father fighting cancer, remembered by his children and neighbors for pushing others forward, whose final months became the center of a case involving robbery, youth violence and a sentence measured in decades.
Author note: Last updated November 8, 2026.