Court Opinion

ID: 9377308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 16:10:12.791606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.356436
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Raphael
UNPUBLISHED

              Argued at Richmond, Virginia

              JERAD WYCHE-ALEXANDER, A/K/A
               JARAD WYCHE
                                                                            MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.     Record No. 0699-22-2                                   JUDGE STUART A. RAPHAEL
                                                                                 MARCH 7, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                                FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
                                          Beverly W. Snukals, Judge Designate

                               (Maureen L. White, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting
                               on brief.

                               Liam A. Curry, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares,
                               Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

                     As Richmond Police Detective Edward Aeschlimann drove down Coalter Street late at

              night with two other detectives, their unmarked SUV was sprayed with bullets fired from a sedan

              that turned left onto Coalter, just ahead of them. Detective Elmer Fernandez, riding in the front-

              passenger seat, was grazed and suffered wounds from the shattered windshield. Detective Henry

              Johnson, sitting behind him, witnessed muzzle flashes from the sedan’s front-passenger and

              right-rear-passenger windows. There were four men in the shooters’ car, including appellant

              Jerad Wyche-Alexander, who sat in the right-rear-passenger seat.

                     Wyche-Alexander was convicted at a bench trial of malicious wounding, possession of a

              firearm during the commission of a felony, maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle, and

              discharging a firearm while in a vehicle. He claims on appeal that the prosecution failed to

                     *
                         Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
exclude the possibility that the sedan’s driver, or the other backseat passenger, fired through his

right-rear window. But because the evidence sufficed to prove Wyche-Alexander’s guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt, we affirm his convictions.

                                           BACKGROUND

       On appeal, we recite the facts “in the ‘light most favorable’ to the Commonwealth, the

prevailing party in the trial court.” Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 231 (2022)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Cady, 300 Va. 325, 329 (2021)). Doing so requires that we “discard”

the defendant’s evidence when it conflicts with the Commonwealth’s evidence, “regard as true

all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth,” and read “all fair inferences” in the

Commonwealth’s favor. Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323,

324 (2018)).

       After 11:00 p.m. on August 20, 2021, Detectives Aeschlimann, Fernandez, and Johnson

were riding in their unmarked Ford Expedition, approaching an apartment complex in response

to a reported shooting. Aeschlimann drove, Fernandez sat in the front-passenger seat, and

Johnson rode in the right-rear seat. Observing a man run across the street and jump into one of

two parked SUVs, Aeschlimann decided to follow the SUVs as they drove away.

       As the Expedition proceeded along Coalter Street and approached the T-intersection at

Little Page Street, a Chevrolet Cruze (a four-door sedan) turned left at high speed onto Coalter

Street in front of them. Johnson simultaneously heard gunshots and saw “muzzle flash[es]” from

the Cruze’s “front and rear passenger side” as the bullets peppered the Expedition. A

surveillance video showed muzzle flashes outside the Cruze’s right-front and right-rear windows

as it turned left, broadside to the Expedition. Two bullets struck the driver’s side of the

Expedition, one shattered the windshield and grazed Fernandez, one struck a tire, and another hit

                                                 -2-
the front grille. Aeschlimann stopped the Expedition while Johnson used his radio to report the

attack and began attending to Fernandez’s injuries.

       Richmond Police Officer Brandon Ball, driving nearby, heard Johnson’s radio report and

spotted the Cruze just seconds later. Ball and other officers stopped the Cruze “about a block”

away from the crime scene. The Cruze was driven by N.H., Anthony Slayton sat in the front-

passenger seat, J.P. sat in the left-rear-passenger seat, and Wyche-Alexander sat in the right-rear-

passenger seat, his window still rolled down.1

       The police found no spent shell casings inside the Cruze. But Ball found two handguns

and a rag “full of ammunition” under some loose carpet in the front-passenger area. The

handguns were .40 caliber semiautomatic pistols—a SIG Sauer P230 and a Glock 23.

       At the intersection where the shooting occurred, police found seven .40 caliber cartridge

cases. They also recovered a bullet from the Expedition’s tire. Subsequent laboratory testing

matched the bullet and shell casings to the pistols found in the Cruze.2

       During an interview at police headquarters, Wyche-Alexander acknowledged sitting in

the right-rear-passenger seat, but he denied that anyone fired guns. He insisted there were no

guns in the car, even after being told that Ball had found the pistols. But in phone calls from jail,

Wyche-Alexander admitted there had been “much shooting going on” and said he had been

“f**ked up” after seeing his friend die. He boasted that he would “beat” any criminal charges

and that even if J.P. “snitch[ed],” it would not matter because “they [didn’t] get the guns off me.

I was in the backseat.”

       1
         We previously affirmed Slayton’s convictions for shooting at the Expedition from the
front-passenger seat. See Slayton v. Commonwealth, No. 0641-21-2, 2022 WL 903382
(Va. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2022).
       2
         After determining that the pistols were unlikely to have recoverable fingerprints, a
detective swabbed them for DNA. But the samples contained DNA from multiple people and
could not be tied to Wyche-Alexander.
                                               -3-
       The trial court found that Wyche-Alexander was the backseat shooter and convicted him

of malicious wounding (Code § 18.2-51), maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle (Code

§ 18.2-154), discharging a firearm while in a vehicle (Code § 18.2-286.1), and possessing a

firearm during the commission of a felony (Code § 18.2-53.1). He was sentenced to 33 years’

incarceration, with 26 years suspended. Wyche-Alexander noted a timely appeal.

                                              ANALYSIS

       Each of the four felony offenses at issue required the Commonwealth to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Wyche-Alexander wielded or fired the handgun.3 Wyche-Alexander

claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was the person who fired the gun from the

Cruze’s right-rear window.

       “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[t]he judgment of the trial court is

presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to

support it.’” McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (alteration in original)

(quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450, 460 (2018)). “In such cases, ‘[t]he Court does

not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Secret v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 204,

228 (2018)). “Rather, the relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Vasquez v.

Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 248 (2016) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 190, 193

(2009)). “If there is evidentiary support for the conviction, ‘the reviewing court is not permitted

       3
          See Code § 18.2-51 (“maliciously shoot . . . any person . . . with the intent to maim . . .
or kill”); Code § 18.2-53.1 (“use . . . any pistol . . . in a threatening manner while committing or
attempting to commit . . . malicious wounding”); Code § 18.2-154 (“maliciously shoots at . . .
any motor vehicle . . . when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life of any person . . .
in such motor vehicle . . . may be put in peril”); Code § 18.2-286.1 (“while in . . . a motor
vehicle, intentionally discharges a firearm so as to create the risk of injury or death to another
person”).
                                                  -4-
to substitute its own judgment, even if its opinion might differ from the conclusions reached by

the finder of fact at the trial.’” McGowan, 72 Va. App. at 521 (quoting Chavez v.

Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 149, 161 (2018)).

       The evidence sufficed for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable

doubt that Wyche-Alexander shot at the detectives’ Expedition from the Cruze’s right-rear

window.4 The surveillance video shows the Cruze turning left at the intersection, with muzzle

flashes visible outside the front-passenger and right-rear-passenger windows. Detective Johnson

testified to seeing muzzle flashes at both windows. When Officer Ball stopped the Cruze one

block away, within “seconds” of the reported shooting, Wyche-Alexander was sitting in the

right-rear seat, his window still rolled down. The trial court understandably deduced from

Wyche-Alexander’s location that he fired the shots out the window beside him.

       Wyche-Alexander no longer disputes that gunshots were fired from the Cruze, but he

says the Commonwealth failed to exclude the possibility that the driver, or the left-rear

passenger, was the one who fired the gun from the rear window. To be sure, when the evidence

of guilt depends almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, “the reasonable doubt

standard requires proof ‘sufficiently convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except

that of guilt.’” Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 258 (2003) (en banc) (quoting

Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 53 (1983)). “Whether an alternative hypothesis of

innocence is reasonable is a question of fact . . . .” Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 12

(1997). We must uphold the trial court’s rejection of a hypothesis of innocence unless the court

was “plainly wrong.” Id. at 13.

       4
          Because the evidence supported Wyche-Alexander’s convictions as a principal in the
first degree, we need not address his other argument that the evidence failed to prove that he
acted as a principal in the second degree.
                                                -5-
        We find no such error here. To the contrary, the hypothesis that the Cruze’s driver or the

left-rear passenger fired shots through Wyche-Alexander’s window was sufficiently negated by

the Commonwealth’s evidence. The surveillance video showed a muzzle flash outside the right

rear window as the Cruze turned left onto Coalter Street. No shell casings were found inside the

Cruze; they were found instead in the intersection where the shooting happened. Those facts

make it implausible that the driver contorted himself, leaning far enough back with one hand to

fire the gun outside the right-rear window while using his other hand to steer the Cruze through

the turn at high speed.

        Similarly, the left-rear passenger (J.P.) would have had to lean across Wyche-Alexander,

extending his arm to point the gun outside the right-rear window while firing shots through the

turn. That scenario, improbable to begin with, was discredited by Wyche-Alexander’s stated fear

that his backseat companion might “snitch[]” on him. The trial court could reasonably treat

Wyche-Alexander’s statement as an admission that he was the backseat shooter, not the

passenger to his left.

        Finally, the trial court was entitled to treat as evidence of guilt Wyche-Alexander’s false

statements to police that no one fired any shots from the Cruze and that none of the passengers

even had a gun. “As factfinder, . . . the trial court was at liberty to discount [the defendant’s]

self-serving statements as little more than lying to ‘conceal his guilt,’ and could treat such

prevarications as ‘affirmative evidence of guilt.’” Coleman v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 19,

25 (2008) (first quoting Haskins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 1, 10 (2004); and then quoting

Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 296 (1992)).

                                                 -6-
                                        CONCLUSION

      The evidence sufficed for the trial court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that

Wyche-Alexander was the backseat shooter.

                                                                                       Affirmed.

                                             -7-