Prosecutors have filed a murder charge and a weapon allegation, but several public claims around the case remain unconfirmed.
MARTINEZ, Calif. — The criminal case against David Swank Prince entered court as a straightforward murder filing, but the public narrative around the Lafayette killing of Christopher Jaber quickly became more complicated, mixing a charged complaint, a reported hatchet attack and social media posts that authorities have not yet publicly tied to the defendant.
In legal terms, the known allegations are narrower than the broader public conversation. The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office said Prince, 35, was charged with murdering Jaber, 34, and stated that he “took the life of Jaber with the use of a hatchet.” Prosecutors also said the killing appeared to be a targeted act and that the complaint included an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. Those statements set out the state’s basic theory. They do not, by themselves, explain motive, show premeditation in public detail, or establish the meaning of messages later reported from a Facebook account with Prince’s name.
The probable-cause timeline described by prosecutors begins on March 21 at about 11:30 a.m. A relative of Jaber called 911 to report a suspicious person carrying a hatchet in the backyard area of the property and trying to break into the accessory dwelling unit where Jaber lived. According to the district attorney’s office, Lafayette police officers reached the scene, found Jaber dead, and detained Prince nearby. That sequence matters because it places the suspect close in time and location to the killing. It also helps explain why the case moved quickly from an active scene to an arrest. What has not been publicly released, at least in the reporting reviewed, is a detailed probable-cause affidavit laying out forensic findings, witness statements beyond initial accounts, or a fuller reconstruction of the moments inside the dwelling.
The social media evidence has received more public attention than many early homicide cases, but its procedural status is still unclear. Law&Crime, KTVU and other outlets reported that a Facebook account using Prince’s name published a Feb. 19 post naming Jaber, listing his address and referring to him as “the eye.” A later comment from the same account said, “Can someone please kill this man.” If authenticated and tied to Prince, that material could become powerful evidence of intent, planning or fixation. But investigators have not publicly confirmed authorship, and prosecutors have not publicly said whether they have preserved the posts through warrants, platform records or device analysis. At this stage, the posts are central to the public story but not yet fully explained within the public court record.
Another possible sentencing factor surfaced through later reporting. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prince had a prior felony assault conviction in Butte County that could qualify as a strike prior under California’s three-strikes law. The newspaper also said Prince had several other felony and misdemeanor matters in Butte County. Prior history does not prove the current charge, and it would be tightly handled in any eventual trial. Still, it can matter in plea negotiations, sentencing exposure and prosecutorial leverage. The Chronicle reported that Prince could face up to 50 years in prison if convicted on the current charges as then described. That figure gives the public a sense of the stakes, though the final exposure would depend on the exact charges, any enhancements and the outcome of the case.
The hearing schedule also reflects how early the prosecution remains. The district attorney’s office first said Prince was set to appear March 25 in Martinez, where he could enter a plea. Later reporting said his attorney sought a continuance and that the expected arraignment was moved to April 2. No later public update appeared in the materials reviewed, so the precise status of the case after that date is not clear from available public reporting. That gap is important. In many serious felony cases, the first filings generate wide headlines, while the verified procedural record develops more slowly through arraignment, plea entry, discovery disputes and possible preliminary-hearing dates.
Outside the courthouse, the case has landed hard in Lafayette, where neighbors told reporters they were stunned by both the violence and the calm way the suspect appeared after the killing. NBC Bay Area quoted neighbor Christina Coleridge describing Jaber as someone she recognized from the block and Prince as someone she had never seen before. Those observations may never become central legal evidence, but they help explain why this homicide has held public attention: it combines a filed murder case, a small suburban setting and a reported digital trail that seems to point forward toward the crime before the state has publicly said exactly how it will use that material in court.
The case now stands at the point where accusation is clear and explanation is incomplete. Prince has been charged, Jaber has been identified, and prosecutors have said the killing was targeted. The next meaningful development will be a court filing or hearing that turns those broad allegations into a fuller public account of motive, evidence and the prosecution’s path forward.
Author note: Last updated April 18, 2026.