Elijah Unique Samuels v. Commonwealth of Virginia

• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 1872232
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA UNPUBLISHED

Present: Judges Fulton, Causey and Lorish

ELIJAH UNIQUE SAMUELS MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 1872-23-2 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 25, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Richard S. Wallerstein, Jr., Judge

(John W. Parsons; John W. Parsons, Attorney at Law, on brief), for appellant.

(Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; David A. Stock, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Following a jury trial, Elijah Samuels was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a

firearm in the commission of murder. On appeal, Samuels asserts that the evidence was insufficient

to prove he was the person who committed the offenses. Because we find that a reasonable fact

finder could conclude upon the totality of the circumstances that Samuels committed the murder, we

affirm his convictions.1

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). 1 The sentencing order incorrectly states that Samuels was convicted of first-degree murder and petit larceny. We therefore remand this matter to the trial court solely for correction of the final sentencing order. Additionally, after examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided, and the appellant has not argued that the case law should be overturned, extended, modified, or reversed.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(b); Rule 5A:27(b). BACKGROUND2

At around 1:30 a.m. on September 15, 2020, Henrico County Police Officer Sarah Sizemore

responded to an apartment complex near Wood Creek Circle in Henrico County “for a suspicious

situation in which a woman was hurt, screaming as if somebody was hurting her.” Upon arrival,

Officer Sizemore encountered a female named Maya Hunter and two males later identified as

Daequon Glover and Samuels.3 Samuels was wearing a white T-shirt, denim-colored jean shorts,

and white sneakers. Hunter and Glover appeared “very relaxed” as they spoke with Officer

Sizemore about the reason she was called to that location. Because all three gave different answers

to her questions and because each one “pointed at different directions when asked where they were

living or residing,” Officer Sizemore thought they were lying about something. However, having

no reason to believe there was a problem, Officer Sizemore left the area at around 1:35 a.m.

At approximately 2:00 a.m., Officer Sizemore was again dispatched to Wood Creek Circle,

this time for a shooting. When she arrived, Officer Sizemore found Hunter standing over Glover,

crying hysterically. Glover was lying on the ground, unconscious, and suffering from several

gunshot wounds. Officer Sizemore noticed that Samuels was no longer there. Glover later died of

his injuries. At trial, Glover’s mother, Taneka Jackson, testified that although Hunter was Glover’s

girlfriend, Glover died because he “was helping [Samuels’s] girlfriend.”

Stacey Mello lived in an apartment on Wood Creek Circle with a balcony that faced a

lighted parking lot. Mello called 911 twice on September 15, 2020. The first time was because she

2 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 evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Cady, 300 Va. at 329 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perkins, 295 Va. 323, 324 (2018)). 3 The interaction between Officer Sizemore and these three individuals was captured on Sizemore’s body worn camera and played for the jury. -2- heard a man and a woman arguing in a manner she described as “very hostile.” After the argument

stopped, Mello looked down into the parking lot from her balcony and observed a man wearing

what appeared to be “jeans shorts and a white shirt” walking near the dumpsters. She did not see a

female. After a while, Mello heard the same man’s voice arguing again, this time with another

male. This second argument was followed by the sound of gunshots. As she was reporting the

gunfire to 911, Mello saw a car speed away from the dumpster area and out of the apartment

complex. At trial she described the car as black in color, having four doors, and being

“non-American.”

At around 4:30 a.m., Henrico County Police Officer Davis Wilcox was tasked with

finding and surveilling two “suspect” vehicles in an apartment complex on Roxanna Road in

Henrico. Upon his arrival, Officer Wilcox located a black Mercedes and a four-door Nissan

Altima parked in front of Samuels’s residence at 420 Roxanna Road. While standing outside the

apartment obscured from view, Officer Wilcox observed a black male wearing a white T-shirt

step outside and look around. The man stood outside the door for a few minutes until a female

later identified as Samuels’s girlfriend, Jakira Randolph, exited the apartment behind him and

entered the Nissan. Randolph moved the Nissan a few spaces away from the apartment and then

she and the male re-entered the residence. Officer Wilcox remained at that location until around

5:30 a.m.

At around 8:00 a.m., Henrico County Police Officer Charles Andrews initiated a “high

risk or felony” traffic stop on the Nissan Altima upon a report that the passenger in the vehicle

was wanted for the homicide.4 Samuels was sitting reclined in the front passenger seat, and

Randolph was in the driver’s seat. Officer Andrews testified,

4 Officer Andrews testified that a felony stop is “similar to a regular traffic stop, but instead of approaching the vehicle, we call out to the occupants of the vehicle and remove them one by one, typically starting with the driver.” -3- Initially we were giving commands for [Samuels] to keep his hands up. To which he initially put his hands up and then began disregarding putting hands in the air and reaching down towards the floorboard of the area. And at one point he attempted to exit the vehicle. We had to give additional commands to get him to remain inside the vehicle, which he did eventually comply with.

The officers removed Samuels from the car and arrested him.

As a member of the Forensics Unit of the Henrico Police Criminal Investigative Section,

Detective Jennifer Shouse-Pearman went to the shooting scene at Wood Creek Circle. During

her investigation there, Detective Shouse-Pearman located eight .45 caliber cartridge casings in

various locations in and around the parking lot. She also located three bullet jackets and one

core bullet. She submitted that evidence to the Department of Forensic Science (DFS) for

analysis. Testing revealed that the casings and bullets recovered at the scene were manufactured

by Sig Sauer and Sellier and Bellot (S&B), respectively.

Detective Shouse-Pearman also searched the residence at 420 Roxanna Road, finding

both a standard size magazine and an extended magazine for a Glock .45 auto caliber firearm,

and a box of .45 caliber cartridges. The ammunition recovered from Samuels’s house was

manufactured by Winchester. During a search of the black, four-door Mercedes, which was

registered to Samuels, Detective Shouse-Pearman collected samples from the steering wheel,

gearshift knob, and driver’s door handle to submit to DFS for primer residue testing. The testing

showed that primer residue was found on all three of those locations inside the car. Upon

Samuels’s arrest nearly eight hours after the shooting, Detective Matthew Rosser took samples

from his hands to send to DFS for primer residue testing. Test results indicated the presence of

primer residue on both of Samuels’s hands.

DFS lab results showed that the bullets and bullet jackets recovered from the crime scene

were fired from the same firearm, and the eight cartridge casings recovered from the crime scene

were fired from the same weapon. However, Firearms Examiner James Bullock, testifying as an -4- expert, explained that without the actual firearm he could not state with certainty that only one

firearm was used during the shooting. He did opine that the bullets and casings recovered at the

crime scene were consistent with having been fired from a Glock .45 caliber automatic weapon.

Detective Rosser also collected videos from cameras located throughout the apartment

complex where the shooting occurred. One of the videos showed Samuels and Randolph exiting

an apartment and walking through the parking lot at 1:04 a.m. on September 15, 2020. Samuels

was wearing a white T-shirt, denim-colored jean shorts, and white shoes, and he eventually

turned away from Randolph, who kept walking, and returned to the apartment. Minutes later, the

same video shows Samuels leaving the apartment wearing a backpack and walking in the

direction where the shooting took place. At 1:58 a.m., another video captured muzzle flashes

from gunshots occurring in the area where Detective Shouse-Pearman later recovered the

cartridge casings and bullets. In that same video, Randolph can be seen just before the shooting

walking to her Nissan Altima, entering her car, pulling forward to face “the direction of the

homicide scene,” and seconds later driving at a high rate of speed out of the parking lot.

Moments later, on the same video, an individual wearing a white T-shirt can be seen running

away from the location where the gunfire occurred. The person fleeing does not appear to be

wearing a backpack.

Detective Rosser also recovered video from the front window of 420 Roxanna Road

showing the area directly in front of the residence. On camera, the Mercedes registered to

Samuels arrived at 2:32 a.m. on September 15, 2020, and an individual wearing a white T-shirt

and denim-colored jean shorts exited the vehicle, met up with Randolph who was already there,

and then both entered the residence. Detective Rosser testified that the drive from Wood Creek

Circle to 420 Roxanna Road takes twenty-eight minutes.

-5- At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Samuels moved to strike, arguing that

the Commonwealth’s evidence failed to prove that Samuels was the person who shot and killed

Glover. The trial court denied Samuels’s motion. Samuels declined to present evidence and

instead renewed his motion to strike, which the trial court also denied. Following deliberations,

the jury convicted Samuels of first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of

murder. Samuels noted this appeal.

ANALYSIS

“In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment ‘unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is plainly wrong or without

evidence to support it.’” Pulley v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 104, 123 (2021) (quoting Poole v.

Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 357, 363 (2021)). “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.’”

McGowan v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 513, 521 (2020) (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 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)).

It is well settled that “[a]t trial, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving the identity

of the accused as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.” Cuffee v. Commonwealth, 61

Va. App. 353, 364 (2013) (quoting Blevins v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 412, 423 (2003)).

However, as with “[a]ny element” of an offense, the Commonwealth may prove the defendant’s

-6- identity through direct or circumstantial evidence. Crawley v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 372,

375 (1999). Indeed, “[c]ircumstantial evidence is competent and is entitled to as much weight as

direct evidence provided that the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently convincing to exclude every

reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Pijor v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 502, 512 (2017)

(quoting Dowden v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 459, 468 (2000)). “While no single piece of evidence

may be sufficient, the combined force of many concurrent and related circumstances . . . may lead a

reasonable mind irresistibly to a conclusion.” Id. at 512-13 (alteration in original) (quoting

Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 479 (2005)). Thus, our review “does not distinguish

between direct and circumstantial evidence, as the fact finder itself ‘is entitled to consider all of the

evidence, without distinction, in reaching its determination.’” Commonwealth v. Moseley, 293 Va.

455, 463 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 513 (2003)). “In other words, in

a circumstantial evidence case . . . the accumulation of various facts and inferences, each mounting

upon the others, may indeed provide sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” of a

defendant’s guilt. Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495, 505 (2011).

The evidence presented in this case, although entirely circumstantial, supported the jury’s

finding that Samuels committed the murder. Mello called 911 after hearing a hostile argument

between a man and a woman in the parking lot of her apartment complex. After the argument

ended, she observed a male wearing a white T-shirt and denim-colored jean shorts walking around

outside; she did not see the female. Shortly thereafter, Officer Sizemore encountered Hunter,

Glover, and Samuels standing together in the parking lot, and noticed that Samuels was wearing a

white T-shirt, denim-colored jean shorts, and white sneakers. Hunter seemed very relaxed, belying

the notion that she was involved in the argument, and Officer Sizemore thought the three were lying

about something. Half an hour later, Mello again heard the man, whose voice she recognized from

the first argument, arguing with a male immediately before she heard gunshots. While on the phone

-7- with 911 again, Mello observed a black, four door, “non-American” car leaving the area at a high

rate of speed. Video-surveillance from the apartment complex captured the muzzle flashes that

occurred at around 1:58 a.m. and a man wearing a white T-shirt fleeing the location from where the

shots were fired. As shots rang out, Randolph was also observed on camera leaving the crime

scene. When Officer Sizemore responded to the shooting at around 2:00 a.m., she noticed that

Samuels was no longer there.

A half-hour later, a camera captured Samuels’s black, four-door Mercedes arriving at his

house at 2:32 a.m., which was consistent with the duration of time it takes to drive from Wood

Creek Circle to Samuels’s residence on Roxanna Road. Randolph’s vehicle was already parked in

front of the house. A man wearing a white T-shirt and denim-colored jean shorts entered the house

with Randolph. Gunshot residue was later recovered from the driver’s door handle, gearshift knob,

and steering wheel of the Mercedes, and upon his arrest, gunshot residue was found on both of

Samuels’s hands. Cartridge casings recovered at the scene were consistent with having been fired

from a .45 caliber weapon, and a significant amount of .45 caliber ammunition was found inside

Samuels’s house. Randolph and Samuels then sought to avoid detection by police⎯both when

Randolph moved her car away from the front door and when Samuels reclined in Randolph’s

vehicle during the felony traffic stop. At times, he disregarded the officers’ instructions. “[T]he

fact of an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a

false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of

guilt itself.” Langhorne v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 97, 102 (1991) (quoting United States v.

Ballard, 423 F.2d 127, 133 (5th Cir. 1970)). Clearly, the accumulation of these facts and

circumstances, each building upon each other, could lead a rational trier of fact irresistibly to the

conclusion that Samuels was the killer.

-8- While we acknowledge, as Samuels asserts, that no direct evidence proved his guilt, the

circumstantial evidence pointing to him as the perpetrator is more than sufficient to overcome the

assertions of innocence he offers. Contrary to Samuels’s assertions, it is of no moment that Mello

told police she thought the black car might be a Honda, or that Samuels wore a backpack before the

shooting and the man fleeing from the scene did not have a backpack, or that the bullets and

cartridges recovered from the scene were made by Sig Sauer and S&B rather than by Winchester, or

that gunshot residue typically does not last for more than six hours on one’s hands, or that the

various witnesses gave differing descriptions about the color of Samuels’s shorts, or that Hunter,

Glover, and Samuels appeared calm when Officer Sizemore first encountered them, or even that

Hunter did not name Samuels as the shooter in the 911 calls she made to police. These weaknesses

in the Commonwealth’s case were all presented to the jury at trial, and Samuels argued their

importance during his closing argument. In finding Samuels guilty, the jury resolved these matters

in the Commonwealth’s favor. Because “[i]t is the prerogative of the trier of fact ‘to resolve

conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts

to ultimate facts,’” we defer to the jury’s resolution of these evidentiary concerns. Sierra v.

Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 770, 776 (2012) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 178,

185 (2010)).

It follows, with all conflicting matters resolved by the jury, the evidence proved that

Samuels and Randolph argued loudly and rancorously in the Wood Creek Circle parking lot and

that when Glover came to Randolph’s defense, Samuels argued with Glover, shot and killed him,

and then fled the scene.

CONCLUSION

We conclude, on the ballistics recovered from both Wood Creek Circle and Roxanna Drive,

the video footage from both locations, the testimony of the various witnesses, the timeline

-9- presented, and Samuels’s attempts to conceal himself, a rational trier of fact could find that Samuels

committed the offenses. The evidence was sufficient to prove Samuels murdered Glover and that he

used a firearm to do it. We therefore find no error in the trial court and affirm the convictions, but

remand solely to correct the final sentencing order.

Affirmed and remanded.

- 10 -