Khamanti Kennedy was served with a second murder charge tied to a separate fatal shooting at South Carolina State University while already held in another SC State homicide case.
The Crime
South Carolina investigators have added a second murder charge against Khamanti Lytrel Kennedy in the February shooting that killed two young men inside a university housing complex. Kennedy had already been charged with murder in connection with the same episode. The July filing formally connected him to the second death and left him facing two pending homicide counts.
The shooting occurred inside Hugine Suites at South Carolina State University. Authorities identified the men who died as 18-year-old Terrell Thomas and 19-year-old Henry L. Crittington. Neither man was reported to be an SC State student. A university student was also wounded, bringing the case into the overlapping worlds of campus security, visitor access and a criminal investigation involving people from outside the school.
According to the arrest-warrant account summarized by SLED and local reporting, Kennedy arrived on campus with three other people. Surveillance footage allegedly showed the group entering and leaving the residential complex, returning to a vehicle and obtaining items before going back inside. Investigators say a marijuana purchase developed into an attempted armed robbery and gunfire.
A witness allegedly told investigators that Kennedy possessed a gun and participated in the shooting. The same account placed him fleeing the building on foot moments afterward. Those allegations will require authentication through testimony, video, forensic evidence and the complete warrant record. The public summaries do not by themselves establish who fired each shot.
Kennedy was already detained when the second charge was served. SLED said the case would be prosecuted by the 1st Circuit Solicitor’s Office. Because the new count concerns a second victim from the same event, the prosecution may involve a shared evidentiary record but separate proof of causation for each death.
The university tightened security after the shooting, including restrictions on visitors and increased screening. Those measures reflect the institutional impact of violence inside student housing, but the criminal case remains focused on the evidence attributed to Kennedy and any other participants.
Case Details
| Crime Location | Hugine Suites at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, South Carolina |
|---|---|
| Date and Time | February 12, 2026; the additional murder charge was announced July 15, 2026 |
| Investigating Agencies | South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, South Carolina State University Police and the 1st Circuit Solicitor’s Office |
| Suspect or Subject | Khamanti Lytrel Kennedy (age 18) |
| Bond or Detention | Held at the Orangeburg County Detention Center; the original murder case was reported without bond |
| Conviction | None reported. Both murder allegations remained pending. |
| Sentence | None reported. |
| Current Outcome | Khamanti Kennedy was served with a second murder charge tied to a separate fatal shooting at South Carolina State University while already held in another SC State homicide case. |
| Victim Information | Terrell Thomas, 18, and Henry L. Crittington, 19, were killed. A South Carolina State University student was injured. |
Charges and Legal Issues
- Two murder charges connected with the deaths in the February 12 shooting
- Possible armed-robbery conduct described in the arrest-warrant narrative
Understanding the Court Status
Criminal charges are formal accusations. They identify the offenses prosecutors believe the available evidence supports, but they do not establish guilt. The government carries the burden of proving every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused may challenge searches, statements, identification procedures, expert conclusions and the credibility of witnesses.
Early charging documents can change. Prosecutors may amend counts, seek an indictment, dismiss allegations or add charges when new evidence develops. Bond decisions address release, public safety and court appearance; they are not a punishment or a verdict. This article therefore separates allegations from convictions and sentences.
Public reporting rarely contains the complete investigative file. Video, laboratory reports, medical records, telephone data, sworn testimony and forensic comparisons may become available later. Any major update, plea, dismissal, trial verdict or sentence should be added to the same case record rather than presented as though the earliest account were final.
Evidence and Unresolved Questions
The central events occurred at Hugine Suites at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, South Carolina. The agencies publicly associated with the matter are South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, South Carolina State University Police and the 1st Circuit Solicitor’s Office. Their files may include dispatch recordings, photographs, interviews, body-camera or surveillance video, forensic submissions and records created during arrest, medical treatment or booking. Only part of that material is normally public at the beginning of a prosecution or investigation.
The reported legal issues include Two murder charges connected with the deaths in the February 12 shooting, Possible armed-robbery conduct described in the arrest-warrant narrative. Each count or possible offense has its own required elements. Evidence that supports one theory may not establish another, and questions involving intent, causation, identity, justification or accomplice liability can become separate disputes.
The reported victim information is: Terrell Thomas, 18, and Henry L. Crittington, 19, were killed. A South Carolina State University student was injured. Victims and surviving relatives may participate through notifications, impact statements or restitution requests, depending on the jurisdiction and outcome. They may also choose not to disclose medical or personal details publicly.
The current reported outcome is: Served with an additional murder charge while already detained on the first murder count. That description is a snapshot rather than a prediction. Hearings can move, charging decisions can change and investigations can produce conflicting interpretations before a court resolves them.
News reports often compress a complicated record into a few paragraphs. A probable-cause statement, search-warrant affidavit, laboratory report or appellate opinion may later clarify details that were omitted from the first police summary. The newest verified court filing should control when it conflicts with an earlier account.
Cases involving gunfire can raise technical questions about trajectory, distance, firearm function, cartridge cases, wounds and digital location evidence. Those subjects require expert testimony and authenticated records. A photograph or social-media post can be relevant, but its meaning depends on when it was created, who controlled the account and whether investigators can establish the surrounding context.
Motive is frequently discussed before it is proven. A dispute, robbery theory, relationship conflict or alleged plan may explain why investigators focused on a person, but motive does not replace proof of the charged conduct. Responsible coverage distinguishes the government’s theory from a judicial finding.
Violent incidents affect people beyond those named in the court caption. Relatives may face funeral costs, medical treatment and long-term trauma. Neighbors, workers and first responders may have witnessed disturbing events or provided emergency aid. Those consequences do not determine guilt, but they explain the public interest in a careful and transparent process.
Public access develops in layers. An initial release may be followed by an indictment, motions, hearing testimony, plea papers, a verdict, sentencing documents or an appellate mandate. A complete case record should eventually identify the disposition of every count rather than treating the most serious allegation as the automatic outcome.
Verified updates should be added when the controlling record materially changes. Unconfirmed social-media claims, unattributed screenshots and recycled headlines should not be used to fill gaps in the evidence.
