Criminal – Circuit court didn’t err in jointly trying murderers

Where a man convicted of second-degree murder argued the circuit court erred in trying him jointly with another man, this argument was rejected. Both defendants faced the exact same charges; the Commonwealth used identical evidence against both and neither defendant gave a statement or made a confession that could be used against the other.

Background

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

Joinder

Carter argues that the court erred in granting a joint trial. This court disagrees. Both defendants faced the exact same charges and the Commonwealth used identical evidence against both. Neither defendant gave a statement or made a confession that could be used against the other. The fact that an eyewitness testified that she saw appellant shoot and additional video evidence showed Brooks shooting as well does not warrant separate trials.

The court also disagrees with appellant’s contention that the fact that the two recovered bullet fragments were fired by only one of the guns means that there was no evidence “that more than one individual fired into the decedent.” The medical examiner identified “a total of twelve gunshot wound injuries,” and the Fredericksburg Police Department, or FPD, recovered 11 cartridge casings from the scene of the shooting, four of which came from one of the guns and seven from the other. From that evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded that both guns “fired into” the decedent’s body.

Finally, appellant contends that the Commonwealth did not provide evidence that his and Brooks’s actions “were part of a [joint] plan.” But Code § 19.2-262.1 does not require proof of a shared plan, only proof of participation “in contemporaneous and related acts or occurrences or in a series of acts or occurrences constituting an offense or offenses.” Here, there is sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the two men were acting in concert.

Sufficiency

Appellant argues that the court erred in finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that appellant was one of the shooters and that he acted with malice. This court again disagrees.

Officer Brown-Kaleopaa, who knew appellant, identified him in the Manshue Cash & Check video, wearing a white sweatshirt with a distinctive design on it and having short dreadlocks. The officer also identified Brooks. Both got into appellant’s white Impala, which appellant’s mother testified she bought for him. That white Impala then parked in front of 714 Denton Circle. Both men emerged from the vehicle and walked toward Chadwick Court.

The witness, Kerri Farr, testified that she saw two men standing over Smith and “empty[ing] the rest of the gun into his body.” She specifically remembered “one young man that had . . . small little dreadlocks and a white hoodie with a design on the front,” who had an arm “extended shooting the victim.” This exactly described appellant’s appearance on the day of the shooting. Further, video footage showed appellant emerging from behind the vehicle where Smith’s body was found.

Using several home security cameras in the neighborhood, Detective Wright determined that appellant and Brooks fled from the Chadwick Court parking lot to 714 Denton Circle. Both ran with their hoods up and one hand in their pocket. Brooks’s neighbor, Rakes, saw them jump the fence behind Brooks’s house and throw an item into the wooded area behind the house. Another security camera also recorded these actions.

A few days later, the FPD recovered two guns from that wooded area and forensic examiners found that all of the cartridges recovered from the Chadwick Court parking lot were fired by those two guns. Similarly, two recovered bullet fragments were also fired by one of those two guns. And the FPD found a backpack in appellant’s white Impala containing unfired nine-millimeter bullets.

Finally, a camera shows two individuals coming from 714 Denton Circle and getting into appellant’s white Impala parked in a spot reserved for 714 Denton Circle; they left together. Appellant and Brooks were later discovered together in Maryland. These facts were sufficient to support the jury’s determination that appellant was one of the shooters who killed Smith.

Regarding malice, although Wallace found a gun on Smith’s body, there is no evidence that he used or threatened to use it. Detective Dobson noted that the safety was on when he recovered Smith’s gun. The gun had not been fired and none of the cartridges recovered from the crime scene came from that gun. The only blood discovered was Smith’s own blood. Finally, evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that appellant fired one of the guns that killed Smith, and “malice may be implied from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon.” Thus, the court did not err in finding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of malice.

Affirmed.

Carter v. Commonwealth, Case No. 2002-24-2, June 9, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (O’Brien). From the Circuit Court of the City of Fredericksburg (Willis). James Joseph Ilijevich for appellant. Aaron J. Campbell, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-241. 14 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-241