Criminal – Witness describe how defendant shot victim

Where a man’s conviction for second degree murder was supported by witness testimony, video evidence, forensic evidence and other testimony, it was affirmed.

Background

Following a jury trial in March 2023, the circuit court convicted Shon De-Mario Bloomfield of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The trial court also declared a mistrial on one count of first-degree murder and one count of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on those two counts. After a second jury trial, the circuit court convicted Bloomfield of second-degree murder and using a firearm in the commission of murder.

Second trial

Bloomfield argues “The trial court erred in denying Bloomfield’s motions to strike his Virginia Code §§ 18.2-32 and 18.2-53.1 charges and in denying his motion to set aside the verdicts because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the convictions.” This court disagrees.

Karen Molina-Guzman testified that she saw the man in white fire a shot at the other man. Although she did not see a weapon, she specifically testified that the person in white fired the shot at the other person who was wearing black. When repeatedly questioned about who was the shooter, Molina reiterated, “I saw when the one that was dressed in white did it.”

During her testimony, Molina demonstrated the movement made by the man in white, which the circuit court judge described as “[s]traightened her arm and pointed her right hand downwardly,” and both counsel for the Commonwealth and counsel for Bloomfield agreed with that description. A rational factfinder could conclude that the motion that Molina testified that she saw was the firing of a shot by the man in white—

Bloomfield confirmed he was wearing the white jacket—at the man in black, who was identified as Anthony Sweat. Furthermore, Bloomfield admitted that he was the man in a white jacket speaking with Sweat in the security camera video that was taken only four minutes before the first 911 call reporting the shooting. Bloomfield also confirmed that he was present when Sweat was murdered and that he was still wearing the white jacket.

Dr. Gofton testified that there was intermediate stippling around the wound on Sweat’s right eye and that a wound with intermediate stippling could have been made “from several inches to several feet away from the body.” Thus, the shooter had to be in very close proximity to Sweat, and Bloomfield confirmed in his testimony that he was still near Sweat at the time Sweat was shot.

Bloomfield also had a motive to kill Sweat. Bloomfield testified that he owed Sweat $4,850. Bloomfield points to his own testimony and argues that the conflicting testimony of his uncle, Carlton Bloomfield, was not credible. The jury was “free to believe or disbelieve, in part or in whole, the testimony of any witness.”

Based on all of the available evidence, and viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the prevailing party below, this court certainly cannot say that no rational factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bloomfield was the person who shot and killed Sweat.

First trial

Bloomfield also argues, “The trial court erred in denying Bloomfield’s motion to strike his Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2(A) charge because the evidence was insufficient to prove that Bloomfield knowingly and intentionally possessed a firearm.” This court again disagrees.

As noted, the evidence was sufficient to convict Bloomfield of using a firearm in the commission of murder. Thus, the jury could credit Molina’s testimony that Bloomfield, who is a convicted felon, possessed a firearm.

Affirmed.

Bloomfield v. Commonwealth, Case No. 0017-25-2, June 9, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Beales). From the Circuit Court of Henrico County (Wallerstein Jr.). Ryan C. Weir (Rachel L. Yates; Law Office of Rachel Yates, PLLC; Yates Appellate Law, on briefs), for appellant. Matthew J. Beyrau, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-235. 11 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-235