Criminal – Evidence supports conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon

Where the defendant told a police offer that he owned the vehicle in which a rifle was found, and that he was a convicted felon, his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon was affirmed.

Background                              

On Aug. 4, 2021, Corporal Josh Watts was on routine patrol in Mecklenburg County when he received a call to report to Winston Johnson’s residence for a welfare check. At the residence, Watts noticed a white vehicle in the yard with “a couple [of] bullet holes.” Watts inspected the vehicle and observed an “AR-15 style rifle” in plain view in the backseat.

Johnson told Watts that Nathaniel Junius Boyd-Goode owned the vehicle. Watts then spoke with Boyd-Goode, who confirmed that he owned the car and that he had purchased it from his cousin. In addition, Boyd-Goode told Watts he owned the rifle and that he was a convicted felon.

At trial, however, Boyd-Goode testified that Johnson owned the vehicle and the firearm. He claimed that he had planned to purchase the vehicle but never did and that only Johnson possessed a set of keys. Boyd-Goode stated he had “no idea” why he told the officers the vehicle and firearm belonged to him. On cross-examination, he testified that the officers had woken him up, so he “might have gotten little things confused.”

The trial court rejected Boyd-Goode’s testimony and found him guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted violent felon in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2.

Firearm

Boyd-Goode first asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the rifle was a firearm by definition. But Boyd-Goode never made this argument in the trial court, and any such argument on appeal is barred by Rule 5A:18. Although Rule 5A:18 contains exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, Boyd-Goode has not invoked either exception, and this court does not consider them on its own.

Sufficiency

Boyd-Goode argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Without disputing his prior conviction for a felony, Boyd-Goode argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed the rifle. He maintains that Johnson owned and had exclusive possession of the vehicle and the firearm and reiterates that he “might have gotten little things confused” when speaking with the officers.

The trial court rejected Boyd-Goode’s testimony, finding it completely “at odds” with what he told the officers. The evidence established that Boyd-Goode admitted that he owned both the vehicle and the rifle found in the backseat. The evidence was therefore sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Boyd-Goode possessed the firearm and that he was guilty of violating Code § 18.2-308.2.

Affirmed.

Boyd-Goode v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1777-24-2, April 7, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of Mecklenburg County (Nelson). (Alanna Meek, Assistant Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Kelly L. Sturman, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-133. 5 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-133
Virginia Lawyers Weekly