The evidence trail after a South Memphis shooting ran from a sidewalk crime scene to a nickname, an identification and a recent threat report, investigators say.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — The early case against Verdell Pegues in a South Memphis double killing rests on several pieces of evidence moving in the same direction: police say video captured the shooting, witnesses named the gunman, shell casings were found at the scene and prior reports linked the suspect to threats against one of the victims.
That convergence helps explain why the case reached formal murder charges so quickly after the March 22 attack near East Dison Avenue and Carnegie Street. Pegues, 41, has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Lashaunda Boyd, 36, and Jimmy Ford, 37, along with additional firearm-related counts. At this early stage, prosecutors do not need to prove the entire case in public, but the records described in coverage suggest investigators believe they have multiple forms of proof that reinforce one another.
The scene evidence came first. Officers responding to the intersection found Boyd and Ford on the ground with gunshot wounds, and investigators recovered 9 mm cartridge casings nearby, according to police accounts cited in reporting. Boyd died there. Ford was taken to a hospital, where he later died. The case narrative set out by authorities says the two victims had been walking just before noon when a man approached and opened fire. Even before detectives turned to motive or relationship history, the physical scene established a public shooting in broad daylight with ballistic evidence left behind. That is often the base layer of a homicide investigation: who was shot, where, with what apparent caliber and in what immediate sequence. Here, police say the sequence included a second round of shots after both victims were already on the ground, a detail that prosecutors may later use to argue deliberation rather than panic or accident.
The next layer was visual evidence. Police said video footage showed a man suddenly shooting Boyd and Ford as they walked along the sidewalk. The reporting does not spell out whether the footage came from a city camera, business camera, home system or another source, but its role in the case appears substantial. Video can answer questions that witnesses remember differently: approach angle, distance, timing, clothing, direction of travel and whether the shooter paused before firing again. If the footage is as clear as investigators suggest, it may become one of the case’s most important anchors because it does not depend on memory alone. It also allows detectives to compare what a witness says happened against what the camera recorded. In the early public record, the video is not described as the only evidence. It is described as one of several pieces that line up together.
Witness evidence then narrowed the suspect. Police said multiple people told investigators that “RaRa,” identified as Boyd’s former boyfriend, was responsible. One witness reportedly said he saw “RaRa” shoot both victims and later identified Pegues as the man he meant. Nickname-based identifications can be challenged in court, especially if there are questions about visibility, stress or prior familiarity. But they can also be compelling when the nickname is well known in a social circle and investigators can connect it clearly to one defendant. In this case, the witness accounts did not stand alone. They sat beside the video and the shell casings. That combination often strengthens an arrest decision because detectives are not relying on a single frightened observer or a single grainy clip. They are building overlap.
The final piece in the opening case theory is the relationship history between Boyd and Pegues. According to the reports based on Shelby County records, Boyd filed two domestic violence-related complaints on March 18 and said Pegues had assaulted her on March 15, then pointed what appeared to be a 9 mm handgun at her on March 17 and threatened, “If I can’t have you, no one can.” For prosecutors, that statement is more than background. It potentially supplies motive, intent and a direct verbal bridge between the earlier incidents and the fatal shooting days later. Pegues was also charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, which signals another evidentiary path prosecutors may use: even apart from the killings, they allege he was barred from possessing the weapon in the first place. Shelby County records cited in coverage say he was held on a $1 million bond and had a video arraignment after his arrest.
What remains unknown is how these pieces will hold up once the case moves deeper into court. Public reporting has not yet laid out forensic testing results, any weapon recovery, a detailed affidavit timeline beyond the broad sequence or the full defense position. Those gaps matter because early charge narratives are designed to establish probable cause, not to answer every question. Still, from an investigative standpoint, the structure of the case is already visible. The sidewalk produced casings. Cameras produced a sequence. Witnesses produced a name. Earlier police complaints produced alleged motive. Prosecutors now have the task of turning that four-part structure into proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pegues remained charged and in custody, with the case still in its preliminary stages. The next milestone will come as the court process tests whether the evidence police described can carry the case from arrest to prosecution.
Author note: Last updated April 21, 2026.