Criminal – Ample evidence supports murder conviction

Where an abundance of evidence supported a man’s second degree murder and related convictions, they were affirmed.

Background

A jury convicted Nasir Nesshon Thomas of nine counts of maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle, one count of second-degree murder by maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle, resulting in death, one count of participating in maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle resulting in death in association with a criminal street gang and one count of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Confrontation Clause

Thomas contends the circuit court violated his confrontation right to fully cross-examine the Commonwealth’s principal witness, T.J., about his serious juvenile criminal convictions, “all of which would have shown [T.J.] may well have been the perpetrat[or] of the crimes and his bias in this trial.” This claim is unpreserved.

Considering the totality of arguments advanced at trial, Thomas, through his counsel, did not argue that bias constitutes a proper basis for impeachment under the Confrontation Clause nor did he make clear that he intended to admit T.J.’s juvenile criminal convictions on cross-examination to show bias of the witness. Because bias was not properly invoked in the lower court, and Thomas did not raise the “good cause” or “ends of justice” exceptions to Rule 5A:18, this court declines to consider the argument for the first time on appeal.

Independently, even were the claim preserved, any error in limiting cross-examination of T.J. about his juvenile adjudications would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was fully informed of T.J.’s prior inconsistent statements, his delayed disclosure to authorities and his non-prosecution for the events of June 14, 2021, the most significant bases for impeachment, and nonetheless credited his account.

Moreover, T.J.’s testimony was extensively corroborated by geolocation data placing his and Handy’s cell phones at the scene, DNA evidence connecting Thomas to cartridges recovered from the shooting, Wright’s and Reese’s independent accounts of a gray Honda Civic executing a U-turn before the gunfire, the autopsy confirming D.R.K.’s death by gunshot and the destruction of Thomas’s alibi defense. On this record, there is no reasonable probability that admission of T.J.’s juvenile adjudications would have produced a different verdict.

Sufficiency

Thomas’s principal attack on sufficiency rests on the claim that T.J. was not a credible witness. This argument cannot succeed on appellate review. Significantly, the jury heard the full extent of T.J.’s prior inconsistent statements and his non-prosecution and still found him credible.

The jury’s rejection of Thomas’s alibi defense provides further support: the record shows that alibi witness Darrlyana Jones rehearsed her testimony with Thomas’s mother and acknowledged in a recorded phone conversation that she did not herself know what occurred on the night in question; fabrication of an alibi is itself evidence from which a jury may draw an inference of consciousness of guilt. Consequently, the court will regard as true T.J.’s testimony.

Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, a jury could reasonably infer Thomas was among those who fired at the vehicle carrying Reese, Brown, Wright and D.R.K., who subsequently died from sustained injuries. Therefore, this court finds no error in Thomas’s conviction for second-degree murder.

Because the elements of maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle under Code § 18.2-154 are necessarily subsumed within the greater offense of second-degree murder under that same statute, the court thus affirms the jury’s verdict on each of the nine counts. Finally, the court cannot say, as a matter of law, that no rational jury could have found that Thomas shot at the victim’s vehicle, resulting in the death of D.R.K., in association with the Spaz gang.

Affirmed.

Thomas v. Commonwealth, Case No. 0335-25-1, June 9, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Bernhard). From the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (Lewis). John O. Venner for appellant. Craig W. Stallard, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-238. 17 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-238