Site icon 48 Hours Tonight

Who Was Davis McClendon & What Happened to Him? 2026 Update & Profile

Ryan Gill

CBS’s 48 Hours presents “The Hit-and-Run Homicide of Davis McClendon” on Saturday, August 22, 2026, at 10:00 p.m. Correspondent Anne-Marie Green reports on the 2023 death of 46-year-old Davis McClendon in Greenwood, South Carolina, and the investigation that transformed what appeared to be a roadside hit-and-run into a murder case.

McClendon was found dead near his wrecked BMW during the early hours of May 7, 2023. His body lay about 50 feet from the car, and his shirt and one shoe were on the roadway. First responders believed another vehicle had struck him after he got out of his car. That theory changed when investigators found an oil slick and a trail of leaking fluid extending from the scene.

The oil trail led deputies to the home where William Grey “Bud” Ackerman, the estranged husband of McClendon’s girlfriend, was staying with his parents. Ackerman’s damaged Ford F-250 was in the driveway and leaking oil. Within hours, authorities arrested him on a murder charge. The case that followed would center on jealousy, digital evidence, vehicle data, competing accident theories and the question of whether Ackerman had driven into McClendon on purpose.

Davis McClendon Was Found Dead on a Secluded Greenwood Road

Authorities were called to the intersection of Avid Road and Sawgrass Place in Greenwood shortly after 1:00 a.m. on May 7, 2023. The location was on a secluded dead-end street. Investigators found McClendon’s damaged BMW 5 Series on the road and his body near the edge of the woods.

Greenwood County Sheriff’s Investigator Patrick Durkin arrived after first responders secured the scene. The BMW had major damage to the driver’s side front fender. Durkin thought the damage looked unusual for a standard collision. Instead of being pushed inward, part of the vehicle appeared torn back.

McClendon’s distance from the car also attracted attention. His body was about 50 feet from the BMW, which supported the theory that he had been outside the vehicle when he was struck. His clothing and debris were scattered across the pavement.

At that stage, investigators had no second vehicle at the scene and no driver waiting to explain what had happened. The evidence appeared to point toward a hit-and-run. Police began treating the scene as a traffic death involving an unknown vehicle, but several physical details suggested there was more to investigate.

Meredith Haynie and Megan McGovern Arrived at the Scene

Two women at the scene gave investigators their first account of the events that preceded McClendon’s death. Meredith Haynie had been dating McClendon. Megan McGovern, who babysat Haynie’s three children, had driven Haynie to the area after McClendon stopped responding during a phone call.

Haynie told investigators that she and McClendon had spent the evening together. McClendon left the Key West Club after midnight. He called Haynie and told her he was parked near Avid Road and Sawgrass Place. During the conversation, he placed her on hold and never returned to the call.

Concerned, Haynie asked McGovern to drive her to the location. McGovern got out of the vehicle and found McClendon’s body. The discovery placed Haynie and McGovern at the center of the early investigation and gave deputies information about whom McClendon had planned to meet.

Haynie believed McClendon was going to meet her estranged husband, Bud Ackerman. That information gave investigators a possible connection between the victim and another man before forensic evidence had established what had occurred.

Davis McClendon Was Known as a Devoted Father and Friend

McClendon’s friends described him as a man who formed close relationships and treated people with care. Chip Funderbunk, Zach Calhoun and Johnny Coats told 48 Hours that McClendon was loved by the people around him and had a reputation for making others feel important.

He had gone through a divorce but remained committed to his role as a father. McClendon also worked at a retirement home, where his personality and concern for others made an impression on residents and co-workers.

His relationship with Haynie began in December 2022. The two met on December 23 while Haynie was celebrating her 39th birthday with friends. McClendon contacted her again around Christmas, and their conversations developed into a relationship.

Haynie later described McClendon as one of the most empathetic people she had known. Their relationship lasted less than six months, but she said they had begun discussing a future together.

Meredith Haynie Had Separated From Bud Ackerman

When Haynie met McClendon, she had been separated from Bud Ackerman after about 10 years of marriage. The couple had three children together. Ackerman owned a local auto body business and came from a prominent Greenwood family.

Haynie told 48 Hours that the marriage changed as Ackerman experienced pressure connected to his work. She said he began drinking more and became difficult to predict. According to Haynie, arguments involved screaming, profanity and criticism that caused her to feel threatened.

She said Ackerman did not physically assault her, but she described the home environment as degrading. She also claimed he became paranoid and installed hidden cameras inside and outside their home. According to Haynie, she found cameras concealed in areas that included a pillow, a dresser, a bush and the children’s rooms.

Haynie and Ackerman separated in spring 2022. She said the separation gave her a sense of relief. Ackerman stopped drinking for a period, she said, and continued attending church with Haynie and their children, but she had decided that the marriage was over.

McClendon and Haynie Began Planning a Future Together

Haynie said she and McClendon approached their relationship with caution. McClendon wanted to know whether Haynie planned to reconcile with Ackerman because he did not want to become the reason a family remained apart.

Once Haynie made clear that she did not plan to return to the marriage, the relationship progressed. Haynie and McClendon sometimes went out of town together because she did not want to create conflict with Ackerman.

Their plans became more serious. Haynie said she and McClendon talked about growing old together and sitting on a porch in rocking chairs when they reached their 80s.

Those plans became a source of tension after Ackerman learned about the relationship. Haynie said he accused her of cheating even though the divorce was close to completion. Ackerman contacted McClendon and asked him to stay away from Haynie until the divorce became final.

McClendon considered the request, according to Haynie, but they decided that complying would give Ackerman control over their relationship.

An Oil Slick Changed the Direction of the Investigation

At the crash scene, Investigator Durkin saw an oil slick on the roadway. Tire marks and footprints were visible around it, and evidence suggested a damaged vehicle had moved away from the point of impact.

Investigators followed the pattern. Near a location where tire marks indicated that a vehicle had turned around, they found oil droplets on a streetlight post about a foot above the ground. The oil continued down the road.

The trail created a physical route from the place where McClendon died. Instead of searching Greenwood for an unknown damaged vehicle, deputies could follow evidence left by the vehicle itself.

Haynie’s statement gave them reason to suspect where the trail might lead. She had told investigators that McClendon planned to meet Ackerman. The oil led to the home of Ackerman’s parents, where Ackerman had been living since his separation from Haynie.

Deputies Found Bud Ackerman and a Damaged Ford F-250

When deputies arrived at the Ackerman residence, Bud Ackerman and his father were near the garage. Ackerman had spent part of the previous day with his three children at a local festival, and the children were staying with him that night under the family’s custody arrangement.

Investigators saw Ackerman’s white Ford F-250 in the driveway. Oil was leaking from the undercarriage. Deputies also observed damage to the grille and what appeared to be a palm mark on the truck.

The vehicle gave investigators an immediate physical connection to the evidence they had followed from the crash site. As they obtained warrants and searched the property, deputies found more indications that Ackerman had been in contact with the leaking fluid.

Body-camera footage recorded deputies noting oily footprints leading toward the house. By about 6:30 a.m., Ackerman was under arrest.

He was charged with the murder of Davis McClendon. The arrest came only a few hours after McClendon’s body had been found, but investigators stressed that the arrest was the beginning of the case rather than its conclusion.

Investigators Believed Ackerman Had Driven Into McClendon

Authorities reconstructed a theory in which McClendon was standing near the driver’s side of his BMW when Ackerman approached in the Ford F-250. Investigators believed the truck crossed toward the BMW, sideswiped the sedan and struck McClendon.

According to the prosecution’s later reconstruction, McClendon was carried on the front of the pickup for part of the distance before falling near the location where his body was found.

Investigators believed Ackerman then stopped the truck, got out, returned to the vehicle, turned around and drove away. Damage to the truck had caused the oil leak, leaving a continuous trail back to the Ackerman residence.

The key challenge for prosecutors would not be proving that Ackerman’s truck struck McClendon. The defense did not dispute that point. The legal dispute centered on intent. Prosecutors needed to convince a jury that Ackerman used his truck as a weapon rather than hitting McClendon by accident.

Evidence Showed Ackerman Had Been Searching for Haynie and McClendon

Investigators began reconstructing Ackerman’s movements during the hours before the collision through phone records, surveillance video and data stored by his Ford pickup.

Haynie’s phone contained a series of calls and messages from Ackerman. At 8:54 p.m., he sent a message asking why she hated him and saying he did not understand. Haynie did not respond. She was having dinner with McClendon at Break on the Lake.

Ackerman contacted her through FaceTime and questioned her about where she was and who she was with. Haynie believed he either recognized the restaurant surroundings or she told him where she was.

Surveillance footage showed Ackerman arriving at the Key West Club around 10:40 p.m. He remained there for about 90 minutes and consumed alcohol. Haynie said a later call from him sounded intoxicated and vulgar.

After midnight, Ackerman left the club. About half an hour later, cameras recorded his truck circling the Break on the Lake parking lot, where Haynie and McClendon had eaten earlier.

Investigators interpreted the movement as evidence that Ackerman was attempting to locate them.

McClendon Agreed to Meet Ackerman

Haynie and McClendon reached the Key West Club after leaving the restaurant. In an ironic overlap, they arrived at the same club Ackerman had left.

At 12:51 a.m., McClendon walked outside and called Ackerman. Haynie believed McClendon wanted to reduce the tension between the men.

A few minutes later, she went outside to check on him and found that he had left. McClendon later called her and said he was going to meet Ackerman.

The defense argued that Ackerman and McClendon had agreed to talk at Ackerman’s parents’ home, about half a mile from the eventual collision site. Defense attorney Jack Swerling said McClendon changed the meeting location to the secluded intersection.

Prosecutors viewed the meeting through a different lens. They argued Ackerman had spent much of the night looking for Haynie and McClendon and was angry about their relationship.

Ackerman’s Truck Recorded the Final Minutes Before the Collision

One of the strongest pieces of evidence came from the Ford F-250 itself. The truck’s infotainment system stored extensive data about its operation.

Lt. Matthew Womack of the Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office explained that the system recorded thousands of events within a 24-hour period. The information included speed, acceleration, braking, door activity and connections to nearby wireless networks.

Investigators said the data showed Ackerman driving near Haynie’s home and McClendon’s street during his search for the couple. It then placed the truck at Avid Road and Sawgrass Place at the time of McClendon’s death.

The data recorded an event between 1:11:31 and 1:11:32 a.m. Investigators said Ackerman hit the brakes hard at that moment. The truck was traveling about 25 miles per hour.

Seconds after the collision, the vehicle stopped. Data indicated the driver’s door opened before the truck was shifted into park. The door was closed, and the truck began moving again.

Authorities concluded Ackerman had left the vehicle after striking McClendon, returned to the cab, turned around near the streetlight and drove back to his parents’ home.

The Defense Said McClendon’s Death Was an Accident

Attorney Jack Swerling did not dispute that Ackerman’s truck struck and killed McClendon. He challenged the prosecution’s claim that the collision was intentional.

Swerling argued that there was no history showing Ackerman to be violent. He also questioned claims that Ackerman was intoxicated. Although Haynie said he sounded drunk, deputies who encountered him hours after the collision did not report signs of intoxication.

The defense said Ackerman was looking for Haynie because he wanted to confirm that she and McClendon were together and speak with her. Swerling emphasized that Haynie and Ackerman remained married under the law at the time.

According to the defense, McClendon became angry over Ackerman’s repeated calls and decided to meet him. Swerling argued that Ackerman believed the men were going to talk, not fight.

The defense also pointed to McClendon’s missing shirt. Swerling suggested McClendon had removed it because he expected a physical confrontation.

Prosecutors Built Their Murder Case Around Jealousy and Intent

Ackerman went on trial in September 2024. Assistant Attorneys General John Conrad and John Meadors prosecuted the case.

The state argued that Ackerman was consumed by anger over Haynie’s relationship with McClendon and had spent hours trying to locate them. Prosecutors told jurors that Ackerman drove his truck into McClendon on purpose.

Doorbell-camera recordings from homes near the intersection became part of the prosecution’s case. The video showed a vehicle prosecutors identified as Ackerman’s truck. Moments later, the recording captured a crash and muffled sounds.

A neighbor testified that he heard yelling. Prosecutors argued that the voice belonged to Ackerman and said he was shouting at McClendon after the impact.

Haynie believed she could hear Ackerman using profanity and challenging McClendon as he lay on the ground. The defense argued that the audio was too unclear to establish the words or speaker with certainty.

Meredith Haynie Testified About Ackerman’s Conduct That Night

Haynie became one of the prosecution’s central witnesses. She testified about her relationship with McClendon, her separation from Ackerman and the repeated phone calls that came from Ackerman during the hours before the collision.

Security footage helped prosecutors establish the timeline. Haynie identified herself and McClendon in video from their date and confirmed that Ackerman continued calling her.

She told jurors that the frequency of the calls became frightening. By the time McClendon left the Key West Club, she was concerned that Ackerman could be volatile.

When McClendon called and said he was meeting Ackerman, Haynie wanted to check on them. After reaching the crash scene with McGovern, she said she feared Ackerman could remain in the area.

The court sustained a defense objection when Haynie began discussing what she believed Ackerman might have done. Swerling chose not to cross-examine her.

Digital Forensics Placed Ackerman at the Exact Location

Special Agent Bryan Hudak testified about the data recovered from Ackerman’s truck. The information placed the F-250 at Avid Road and Sawgrass Place during the window in which McClendon was struck.

Hudak identified the key vehicle event as taking place between 1:11:31 and 1:11:32 a.m. The data showed a sudden reduction in speed at that point.

Prosecutors argued that the digital records functioned as a precise account of Ackerman’s actions. The evidence gave the state a timeline independent of eyewitness memories.

Collision reconstruction evidence supported the state’s theory. Corporal Kristopher Bratcher testified that Ackerman’s Ford was on the wrong side of the roadway when it struck the BMW.

The prosecution argued that Ackerman drove toward McClendon, sideswiped the BMW and struck him near the driver’s door.

The Defense Presented a Competing Reconstruction

The defense called automotive forensics expert Jonathan Nelson to challenge the state’s theory of intent.

Nelson considered the road conditions, darkness, slope of the road, vehicle speed and glare from the BMW’s headlights. He testified that Ackerman might have had no more than about two and a half seconds to see McClendon before impact.

Swerling argued that such a short window would have left a driver with little time to react.

The defense also disagreed with the prosecution about where McClendon was standing. Prosecutors placed him beside his BMW. The defense argued he was closer to the middle of the road.

Under the defense theory, Ackerman swerved left and struck the BMW because he was trying to avoid McClendon. The collision with McClendon, Swerling maintained, was accidental.

Bud Ackerman Testified in His Own Defense

Ackerman took the witness stand and told jurors that he loved Haynie and had no plan to hurt McClendon.

He admitted that he had been angry about the relationship but said he agreed to meet McClendon so the two could talk.

Ackerman testified that he did not realize how fast he was traveling when he approached the intersection. He said he intended to pull alongside McClendon and did not see him until the last moment.

According to Ackerman, he reacted by jerking the truck to the left and trying to strike the BMW as a way of stopping his forward movement.

The testimony gave jurors a direct choice between the prosecution’s theory of an intentional attack and Ackerman’s account of a failed attempt to avoid a man standing in the roadway.

Ackerman’s Failure to Call 911 Became a Major Issue

On cross-examination, prosecutors focused on what Ackerman did after the collision.

Ackerman admitted that he did not call 911. He left the scene and drove to his parents’ home.

When asked why, he said he panicked.

His parents did not call authorities after he reached their house and told them what happened. That lack of contact with emergency services became one of the most damaging facts for the defense.

McClendon’s friends later said they struggled to understand why no member of the Ackerman family called for medical assistance while McClendon remained in the road.

Swerling argued that people sometimes react to traumatic events in ways that appear irrational. Prosecutors portrayed Ackerman’s departure as evidence of guilt.

Prosecutors Said Ackerman Used His Truck as a Murder Weapon

During closing arguments, prosecutor John Meadors compared the case to a drive-by shooting and argued that the pickup truck served as Ackerman’s weapon.

The state returned to the infotainment system as proof of intent. Prosecutors argued that the truck data showed Ackerman’s pursuit of the couple, his location, the collision and his conduct after impact.

The defense maintained that the state had failed to prove malice or intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Swerling asked jurors to acquit Ackerman of murder.

The dispute came down to whether the jury believed Ackerman aimed at McClendon or encountered him in the darkness and failed to avoid him.

After six days of testimony, the jurors did not take long to make that decision.

The Jury Convicted Bud Ackerman of Murder

The jury deliberated for less than 30 minutes before returning to the courtroom.

The foreperson announced that William Grey “Bud” Ackerman had been found guilty of murder.

Swerling later said the speed of the verdict concerned him because he believed the jurors had not taken enough time to consider the defense evidence. Prosecutors and McClendon’s friends viewed the short deliberation as a reflection of the strength of the state’s case.

For Haynie, the verdict brought relief. She had expected a guilty verdict but was surprised by how fast the jury reached its decision.

The conviction established that jurors accepted the prosecution’s claim that Ackerman’s collision with McClendon was an intentional act of homicide rather than an accident.

Davis McClendon’s Son Asked the Court for Accountability

Sentencing took place after the verdict. McClendon’s son, Frederick McClendon, addressed the court and demanded consequences for Ackerman and criticized members of the Ackerman family for their actions after his father’s death.

Ackerman’s father, William Grey Ackerman Sr., addressed the question of why he had not called 911. He said he had been disoriented when his son woke him during the early hours and told him what had happened.

The failure to summon help remained a painful issue for McClendon’s family and friends. For them, the decision to leave McClendon at the scene without contacting authorities compounded the violence of his death.

Judge Donald Hocker then imposed the sentence.

Bud Ackerman Was Sentenced to 45 Years in Prison

Judge Hocker sentenced Ackerman to 45 years in the South Carolina Department of Corrections for the murder of Davis McClendon.

The sentence means Ackerman is not eligible for parole. He is expected to remain incarcerated until 2068 under the sentence as imposed.

Ackerman has appealed his conviction. Unless the conviction or sentence changes through the appeals process, he faces decades in prison.

For Haynie, the length of the sentence reduced a fear that Ackerman might return to her life after serving only a short term. She said she had worried that a sentence of five or 10 years could leave her waiting for his release and unable to build a new future.

Meredith Haynie Believes Davis McClendon Saved Her Life

After the trial, Haynie continued raising the three children she shares with Ackerman. With their father facing decades in prison, she said she planned to rely on friends and family while helping the children cope with the consequences of the case.

Haynie has said she believes she may have been Ackerman’s intended target on the night McClendon died. In her view, Ackerman found McClendon first.

She credits McClendon with saving her life.

The belief adds another dimension to the loss. Haynie had expected to build a future with McClendon, but their relationship ended after less than six months when he went to meet Ackerman during the early hours of May 7.

She said she wants McClendon remembered as a hero and as a man defined by empathy, generosity and the way he treated other people.

The Oil Trail and Digital Evidence Defined the Case

The investigation into Davis McClendon’s death began with a scene that looked like a hit-and-run. A damaged BMW, a body beside the road and the absence of another vehicle supported that explanation.

Investigators changed course because they paid attention to evidence that did not fit a routine traffic collision. The oil slick, tire marks and leaking fluid created a trail from the crash scene to Ackerman’s truck.

From there, phone records, surveillance footage, vehicle data, collision reconstruction and witness testimony created a timeline of the hours before and after McClendon’s death.

The infotainment system became one of the most important witnesses in the case. It recorded information that placed Ackerman at the scene and gave investigators detailed measurements of the truck’s movements at the moment of impact.

What began as a roadside death became a case in which a vehicle, its onboard computer and a trail of oil helped prosecutors prove murder.

48 Hours Revisits the Murder of Davis McClendon

48 Hours: “The Hit-and-Run Homicide of Davis McClendon” examines the investigation, trial and evidence that led to Bud Ackerman’s conviction.

Anne-Marie Green reports on how investigators followed the oil from the crash site, reconstructed Ackerman’s movements and recovered data from his Ford F-250 that became central to the prosecution’s case.

The episode also presents the defense argument that Ackerman did not intend to kill McClendon and that the collision resulted from limited visibility and a failed attempt to avoid him.

A jury rejected that explanation in September 2024 and convicted Ackerman of murder after less than half an hour of deliberation. He received a 45-year prison sentence and is not eligible for parole. His conviction remains the subject of an appeal.

For McClendon’s family and friends, the case is about more than the physical evidence that solved a homicide. It is also the story of a father, friend and partner whose life ended during a confrontation tied to a relationship that had begun only months before.

CBS airs 48 Hours: “The Hit-and-Run Homicide of Davis McClendon” on Saturday, August 22, 2026, from 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. Anne-Marie Green reports on the evidence, the competing accounts of the collision and the murder conviction that followed.

More “The Hit-and-Run Homicide of Davis McClendon”

More Feature Articles

Exit mobile version