A jury began deliberating June 17 in the trial of a 40-year-old man accused of fatally shooting another man following an altercation outside a Family Dollar store.
Braxton Day, 40, is charged with manslaughter, firearm use in a felony violent crime, having a handgun on his person and possession of a firearm without a serial number. Authorities believe Day fatally shot 42-year-old Bryant Breland on May 31, 2025, following an altercation at a Family Dollar store located on the 600 block of Cherry Hill Road.
The proceedings took place before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Jeannie J. Hong.
The state began the day by calling a Baltimore police officer to the stand. The officer testified that he responded to a shooting and arrived to see Breland lying on the ground with a gunshot wound while another officer gave him chest compressions. The officer also testified that he found a handgun in the alley at the rear of the Family Dollar and said he did not move it.
Prosecutors then showed the officer’s body-worn camera footage, which supported his testimony.
Defense attorney Maureen O’Leary then called Day to testify. Day, who was employed at the Family Dollar, told the court that he was not scheduled to work that day but stopped by to help the manager open the store. He said he clocked in and worked for approximately one hour and 45 minutes.
Day also testified about how he came into possession of the firearm. He said that about a week before the incident, he found a bag near train tracks while walking home from work. According to Day, he kicked the bag, noticed it was heavy, opened it out of curiosity and found a gun inside. He said he decided to take it.
On the day of the incident, Day said he retrieved the gun from his cousin’s house because his cousin wanted it removed from the home due to teenagers being present. Day said he then walked toward another location and passed the Family Dollar, where he decided to stop and help.
Day testified that after helping inside the store, he was standing outside drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette when Breland approached him. Day said Breland reached for the gun tucked in his waistband. According to Day, he feared for his life, panicked and struggled with Breland before a shot was fired. Day said he did not intend to shoot or kill Breland.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Day about why he took the gun, why he never reported it and how he knew how to load it if he was not familiar with firearms. Day said he learned some things from YouTube and claimed he did not know the gun was loaded on the day of the incident. He also said he was afraid to report the gun because he believed he could get in trouble and that people would not believe how he found it.
The prosecutor also questioned how Breland would have known about the gun if it was hidden in Day’s waistband. Day said he did not know and could not speak for Breland. Day admitted that he knew he should not have been carrying a gun, but said he did not expect it to become an issue because he did not plan to be at the store long.
After Day stepped down from the stand, both parties gave closing arguments.
The prosecution first showed surveillance footage of the incident. The footage showed the altercation, a shot being fired, Breland falling to the ground and Day running away. The incident appeared to happen very quickly.
The prosecutor argued that Day was wrong for bringing a gun into what was essentially a fistfight. She acknowledged that Breland may have been the initial aggressor, but argued that the use of a firearm was not justified because of the serious harm or death it can cause.
The prosecutor also argued that Day and Breland appeared to be similar in size, meaning Day was not at a major physical disadvantage. She then explained the legal definitions of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, arguing that Day’s self-defense claim could be challenged because his actions were reckless and grossly negligent.
The state said Day acted recklessly by picking up a random firearm, failing to report it and carrying it while drinking. The prosecutor also argued that if Day truly had little experience with firearms, he should not have been carrying one at all. She asked the jury to use their own personal experiences and common sense when deciding whether Day’s actions were reasonable. The state argued that Day’s decisions resulted in the loss of Breland’s life.
O’Leary argued that Day acted in self-defense. She said the surveillance footage showed Breland attacking Day and reaching near Day’s waist, where the gun was located. According to the defense, Day believed Breland was going to take the gun from him and use it. O’Leary also emphasized that Day fired only one shot, arguing that it was necessary for him to protect himself.
In rebuttal, the state returned to the argument that Day acted recklessly and endangered others. The prosecutor emphasized that gun training exists for a reason and argued that Day, who claimed to know little about firearms, should not have been carrying a gun, especially while drinking.
The jury was sent out to deliberate, and a verdict is expected soon.
