Prosecutors said Charles Saunders shot two acquaintances after days of conflict, then fled before his arrest at a Ridgeland Waffle House.
RIDGELAND, S.C. — A South Carolina murder trial ended with a conviction, a life sentence and a grim portrait of a family dispute that prosecutors said spilled into gunfire at a Hardeeville apartment complex in front of children.
The conviction of Charles Saunders brought legal finality to a case that had already become emotionally charged in the Lowcountry because of who was involved and where it happened. Prosecutors said Saunders, 50, killed Alesia Dykes and Bernard Alexander Lyles on June 18, 2024, at the Walsh Drive Apartments. The state framed the shooting as intentional and supported by prior threats. The defense argued Saunders was protecting himself. The jury rejected that defense, finding him guilty on two murder counts and two weapon charges before a judge imposed consecutive life sentences.
The prosecution’s story began long before the fatal confrontation. According to the state, Saunders and Dykes knew each other years earlier in New York. Dykes later introduced Saunders to her sister, and they had a son together. By the summer of 2024, the family tree had stretched again after the son had a child. Saunders traveled south and stayed with Dykes for about three weeks. Dykes and Lyles were also housing Saunders’ adult son and grandson. In court, those facts mattered because they showed Saunders was not an outsider passing through. He was part of a circle of people who knew his habits, trusted him enough to let him stay nearby and, prosecutors said, had every reason to expect the dispute would end without bloodshed.
Instead, prosecutors said, the tension worsened over several days. Saunders and Lyles had argued before the shooting, and the state said Saunders posted a social media video in which he showed firearms and threatened to shoot someone. Those details gave prosecutors a way to argue malice and intent. On June 18, police were called to the apartment complex shortly after noon. Witnesses said the conflict started outside as a verbal confrontation and then turned physical. Dykes and Lyles went back into the apartment, but prosecutors said Saunders advanced to the doorway, pulled a handgun from his waistband and began firing. The state said that sequence showed pursuit, not retreat, and was central to disproving self-defense.
What jurors heard next filled in the human cost with stark simplicity. Three children were inside the apartment during the shooting. Dykes died at the scene. Lyles was taken to Coastal Carolina Hospital, where he later died. One of the children ran for help to a relative living at the neighboring Deer Run Apartments. During testimony, Shawonna Dykes told jurors the child said Saunders had shot “momma and Boo Boo too.” The statement was brief, but it carried unusual weight because it captured the scene through the eyes of a child who had just seen two adults collapse under gunfire. It also anchored the state’s argument that the violence unfolded inside a lived-in family space, not on some distant or abstract crime scene.
Jurors also heard about the hours after the killings, when prosecutors said Saunders tried to separate himself from the evidence. Surveillance video traced him as he moved away from the apartment complex. The footage, according to prosecutors, showed him removing his shirt and throwing it away. Investigators later recovered the shirt from a trash container and found gunshot residue on it. Cameras then picked up Saunders getting into a vehicle. He was arrested later at a Waffle House in Ridgeland. The state presented those steps as a narrative of flight. Prosecutors argued that a man who had lawfully defended himself would not need to discard clothing, leave the area and surface later at a restaurant miles away.
The defense challenged that interpretation and focused on uncertainty. Defense lawyers argued Saunders acted in self-defense and questioned investigators about whether they could determine exactly how the physical struggle developed. They emphasized that no gun was directly linked to Saunders in the clean evidentiary sequence that often defines high-profile homicide cases. Prosecutors responded that firearms evidence showed only one weapon had been fired and that two other guns recovered at the scene were not discharged. That rebuttal allowed the state to argue there was no active exchange of gunfire and no reasonable basis to believe Saunders had to shoot both victims to survive the encounter.
Once the case reached the jury, the decision came quickly. After a three-day trial, jurors deliberated for a little more than an hour and convicted Saunders. During sentencing, prosecutors asked the court to weigh not only the killings themselves but the setting in which they happened: in front of children and within a family circle that had offered shelter and support. Victim relatives then described who Dykes and Lyles were beyond the criminal charges. Lyles’ mother said her son had plans to improve his life. Dykes’ father told the court his daughter had helped raise Saunders’ son, framing the case as an act of betrayal as much as violence.
Judge Carmen T. Mullen sentenced Saunders to two consecutive life terms plus five years on the weapon counts. Saunders continued to maintain he acted in self-defense, but the courtroom outcome left the state with a complete win on its central theory. Where the case stands now is straightforward: the convictions are entered, the sentence is imposed and the legal path ahead would move through any appeal rather than another trial. For the families, though, the next stage is not legal at all. It is the longer and quieter reality left after a jury leaves, a courtroom empties and two people do not come home.
Author note: Last updated March 20, 2026.