Sufficient evidence to show appellant was shooter

In this malicious wounding case where shots were fired from a moving vehicle, there was sufficient evidence that appellant was one of the shooters.

Appellant’s argument

Appellant Slayton appeals his convictions of malicious wounding, use of a firearm, maliciously shooting into an occupied vehicle and shooting from a vehicle.

“Slayton does not contest that a shooting from the vehicle occurred. He merely asserts that the evidence failed to prove he was the shooter.

“Slayton relies on the facts that there were no eyewitnesses to his involvement, there was no evidence of gun residue suggesting he had fired the weapons, there was no DNA evidence proving he handled the weapons, and there were no statements made by Slayton or his co-defendants admitting he was the shooter.

“Slayton concludes that the evidence proves only his presence in the car during the shooting, and he hypothesizes that, because any of the other three occupants could have been the shooter, no rational finder of fact could have found him guilty of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The facts, however, together with all reasonable inferences, suggest otherwise.”

The evidence

“Detective Johnson testified that as the Cruze turned onto Coalter Street, he could hear gunfire coming from that vehicle and he saw muzzle flashes coming from both the front and back passenger side of the car.

“The gunfire tore through the front windshield of the Expedition, injuring Fernandez. Mere seconds later, Officer Ball stopped the Cruze one city block away from the crime scene. Slayton was sitting in the front passenger seat. … [T]he firearms used in the shooting were already secreted under the floor mat and insulation, at Slayton’s feet.

“The Commonwealth also introduced video surveillance, which shows two flashes of light captured at the front passenger side and the back passenger side of the Cruze as it sped by the Expedition. No evidence was presented of any bullet fragments or cartridge casings located elsewhere inside the Cruze, which suggests the shots were fired from the passenger seats.

“There was also no evidence to suggest that the occupants of the vehicle exchanged seats as the car sped down Coalter, passing other vehicles, and turned onto Oliver Hill. …

“[W]e find that Slayton’s alternative hypotheses of innocence that he switched places with another passenger just after the shooting, or that the driver shot across him out of the passenger’s side window, are simply not supported by the evidence or any reasonable inferences.

“Because the traffic stop occurred mere seconds after the shooting, less than the time necessary to travel one city block at a high rate of speed, there was insufficient time for Slayton to have switched seats with another passenger and for someone to have hidden the guns under the passenger seat floorboard.

“And there is no reason why Slayton would have agreed to trade seats with one of the shooters. Indeed, it would have gone against his interest to do so.

“Finally, the fact that the shooting occurred as the Cruze took a left-hand turn onto Oliver Hill Way, and the video shows that it did not swerve or otherwise veer from its path, makes it improbable that the driver reached across Slayton to shoot out of the window.

“The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding Slayton guilty as a principal in the first degree of all four offenses.”

Affirmed.

Slayton v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0641-21-2, March 29, 2022. CAV (Lorish) from the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Marchant). Julian P. Viscidi for appellant. Liam A. Curry for appellee. VLW 022-7-072, 10 pp. Unpublished opinion.