Criminal – Evidence supports murder and firearm convictions

Where the defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s second-degree murder and firearm verdicts, this argument was rejected. The totality of both direct and circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to reject his hypothesis that he did not shoot the victim and that someone else deposited the guns behind his house.

Background

Following a three-day jury trial, Lorenzo Adonis Brooks and Aaron Randolph Carter were convicted of second-degree murder of Jasiah Smith and using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Sufficiency

Brooks contends that the circuit court erred in finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the individual who shot Smith. According to appellant, the evidence only showed that he was one of many people at the location of the shooting, and no witness or forensic evidence directly tied him to the crime. Finally, appellant posits that because the guns were not found until several days after the incident, “the real assailant” had time to deposit them in that area.

The totality of both direct and circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to reject appellant’s hypothesis that he did not shoot Smith and that someone else deposited the guns behind appellant’s house. Officer Brown-Kaleopaa, who knew appellant, identified him in the store video—recorded only hours before the shooting—wearing a dark blue or black puffer jacket, black pants and black shoes with white soles.

Witness Brown-Kaleopaa also identified Carter, who was wearing a white sweatshirt with a distinct design on it. Both Carter and appellant got into Carter’s white Impala. A little later that day, the white Impala parked in front of 714 Denton Circle, appellant’s residence at the time, and appellant and Carter exited the vehicle. Further, on brief, appellant acknowledged that the evidence “showed that [he] was at the location of the crime” along with other individuals.

Appellant emphasizes that Kerri Farr, the eyewitness, did not identify him as a shooter but rather described someone wearing a white sweatshirt and having dreadlocks—a description that fits Carter. But Farr did testify that she saw two men standing over Smith, “empty[ing] the rest of the gun into his body.” Further, security camera footage showed appellant backing up from behind the parked car, where officers found Smith’s body. He has his arm outstretched and is pointing a gun at the area behind the car.

Based on footage from several home security cameras, Detective Wright was able to reconstruct appellant and Carter’s flight through the neighborhood, running from Chadwick Court toward appellant’s home. Both ran with their hoods up and one hand in their pocket. Appellant’s neighbor, Taylor Rakes, saw the two men jump the fence behind appellant’s house and throw an item into the back wooded area, which made a “loud clank.” Another neighbor’s security camera recorded these actions.

A few days later, the Fredericksburg Police Department recovered two guns from the wooded area behind appellant’s house; forensic examiners found that all eleven cartridges recovered from the Chadwick Court parking lot were fired by those two guns—four by one of the guns, seven by the other one.

Similarly, two bullet fragments recovered from Smith’s body were also fired by one of those two guns. The medical examiner determined that Smith suffered twelve gunshot wounds. Based on that evidence, the jury could have concluded that appellant shot at least some of the bullets that hit and ultimately killed Smith.

Finally, only minutes after the shooting, footage from a security camera on 710 Denton Circle showed two individuals coming from appellant’s home and getting into Carter’s white Impala, parked in a spot reserved for the residence; the individuals left together.

Appellant and Carter were later discovered together in Maryland. “Any flight at a time when it may be to avoid arrest, prosecution, or confinement tends to show a consciousness of guilt.” Based on that evidence, a reasonable jury could determine that appellant was one of the shooters. The facts were sufficient to support the factfinder’s rejection of appellant’s theory that he did not shoot Smith.

Affirmed.

Brooks v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0033-25-2, May 5, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (O’Brien). From the Circuit Court of the City of Fredericksburg (Willis). (Alexander Raymond, on brief), for appellant. William K. Hamilton, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-176. 8 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-176

• Brooks v. Commonwealth