Brayden Carter was indicted in Criminal Court, while Damarion Coleman faces matching allegations in Juvenile Court because of his age.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Two defendants accused in the same fatal highway shooting face different paths through Tennessee’s justice system because one was an adult and the other was 17 when Fisk University basketball player Andre Bell was killed.
Brayden Carter, 19, has been indicted in Davidson County Criminal Court on first-degree murder, attempted-murder and firearm charges. Damarion Coleman, now 18, faces the same allegations in Juvenile Court because he was under 18 on Jan. 11, the date police say gunfire from a dark sedan struck Bell’s car on Interstate 65. The distinction may shape hearings, public access and scheduling even though investigators accuse both young men of participating in the events that led to Bell’s death.
Carter’s grand jury indictment includes one count of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder and three counts of using a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, police said. A Criminal Court judge set his bond at $250,000. An indictment means a grand jury found sufficient grounds for the charges to proceed; it is not a finding that Carter committed the crimes. He retains the right to review and challenge the prosecution’s evidence.
Coleman’s case began under juvenile jurisdiction based on his age when the alleged offenses occurred. Police said he would remain in custody pending a detention hearing. Public reports had not established whether prosecutors would ask a juvenile judge to transfer his case for adult prosecution. A transfer decision, should one be requested, would be a separate legal step and should not be assumed merely because Coleman turned 18 before his arrest.
The procedural divide began after a joint investigation and arrests carried out on the same day in Murfreesboro. Nashville detectives stopped Carter in a vehicle after he left a home on Melodic Way and recovered a pistol, according to police. Murfreesboro SWAT officers arrested Coleman at a home on Chelanie Circle. Authorities announced both arrests as the result of the investigation into Bell’s killing, but they did not provide identical details about the evidence allegedly connecting each defendant to the shooting.
Police have not said which man they believe fired the shots, who was driving the sedan or whether both handled a weapon. They also have not explained whether the pistol recovered during Carter’s arrest was sent for comparison with evidence from the crime scene or identified as the firearm used in the attack. Those omissions do not determine the strength of the case, but they leave the public without a complete account of the alleged role assigned to each defendant.
The charges involving Bell’s two passengers show that the prosecution is concerned with more than the single fatal injury. Bell was driving two fellow Fisk students north on Interstate 65 when the sedan approached near the Interstate 40 East junction. Multiple shots were fired into the Nissan, police said. Bell was struck and died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Jan. 12. His passengers were not reported physically injured, but Carter’s indictment alleges attempted first-degree murder involving both of them.
Attempted-murder allegations require the state to establish more than the fact that passengers were nearby. Prosecutors will have to present the legal theory and evidence supporting the claim that the conduct amounted to an attempt to kill them. The firearm counts likewise depend on the alleged use of a gun during specified felonies. Coleman’s matching juvenile charges indicate that authorities attribute comparable criminal responsibility to him, although the evidence against the two may not be identical.
Police say the events began at a Fisk gymnastics meet at the Nashville Fairgrounds. Bell and his companions had volunteered at the university event and were returning to campus. Investigators allege that Carter’s girlfriend belonged to the gymnastics team and that Carter did not like other young men talking with her. Carter and Coleman were also at the fairgrounds, police said, and allegedly followed the basketball players with the purpose of frightening them into staying away from the girlfriend.
The alleged motive raises questions that court proceedings may clarify. Authorities have not said whether Bell personally spoke with the team member, whether an argument occurred or whether any direct warning was delivered before the cars entered the highway. They have not accused the girlfriend of participating in the pursuit or shooting. The police theory attributes the jealousy and alleged response to Carter, with Coleman accused as a second participant.
A plan described as intimidation can still support severe charges when gunfire is directed into an occupied vehicle. Prosecutors may rely on the manner of the shooting, the number of rounds, the conduct before and afterward, and evidence of shared planning to establish intent. Defense lawyers may argue about what each defendant knew, intended or did. The public statements from police do not resolve those issues, and the allegations have not been tested through testimony or cross-examination.
Investigators highlighted cellphone-data analysis as an important part of the case. The department has not said whether the records showed travel from the fairgrounds, communication between Carter and Coleman or some other connection. In either court system, defense attorneys may seek information about how the data was obtained, which devices were examined and how investigators linked those devices to the defendants. Judges may be asked to decide whether particular evidence can be used.
Carter’s adult case may produce motions involving the vehicle stop and the pistol recovered during his arrest. Lawyers could examine the legal basis for the stop, the location of the weapon and any testing performed afterward. No public report says Carter made a statement to officers. Authorities also have not said whether they searched his residence or recovered clothing, vehicles, electronic devices or other items allegedly tied to Jan. 11.
Coleman’s detention hearing has a different immediate purpose. A juvenile judge generally considers whether a young person should remain in custody while the case proceeds, rather than deciding guilt at that stage. If prosecutors pursue adult treatment, later hearings could address whether legal requirements for transfer are met. Because juvenile matters may have tighter confidentiality rules, the public could receive fewer details from Coleman’s case than from Carter’s.
The defendants’ ages have already been reported differently in coverage because time passed between the crime and arrests. Police initially described both as 18 when announcing the arrests, while later reports listed Carter as 19. Coleman was 17 when Bell was killed and 18 when arrested. The legally important age for juvenile jurisdiction is the age at the time of the alleged act, which explains why two people close in age can enter separate systems after being accused in the same investigation.
That separation does not necessarily mean the cases will remain unconnected. Evidence, witnesses and forensic findings may overlap. Bell’s passengers could be witnesses in both matters, as could people who attended the gymnastics meet. Detectives who examined the cellphone information or processed Bell’s vehicle may also be called in each case. Courts can still reach different outcomes because the allegations against each defendant must be considered individually.
The proceedings also carry different consequences for public understanding of the crime. An adult indictment identifies charges in a document and creates a more visible court record. Juvenile allegations can be less accessible, leaving official police statements as the main public source until a judge rules on later steps. That difference can create an incomplete picture in which more is known about Carter’s formal case even though police accuse Coleman of the same offenses.
Behind the procedural issues is the death of a 20-year-old student. Bell was a sophomore business administration major from Jackson, Tennessee, and a small forward on Fisk’s men’s basketball team. He had attended Sacred Heart of Jesus High School and was listed at 6 feet, 4 inches. Fisk officials said he was returning from volunteer work at the gymnastics event when he was shot.
The university remembered Bell as a scholar and an important member of its athletics community. Athletic Director Valencia Jordan said the department was devastated by his death. The school’s statement placed his service at the center of its account: Bell had spent the evening helping another Fisk team and was on his way home. That fact stands apart from the legal dispute over motive and responsibility.
Bell’s family said the arrests brought relief but did not remove the shock and heartbreak they continued to experience. Their statement recognized the suspects as people police believed were responsible, preserving the distinction between an arrest and a conviction. For the family, the start of court proceedings offers the possibility of public answers, but it also requires waiting through two systems that may operate on different schedules.
Neither case had reached trial, and no verdict had been entered. Carter’s charges will proceed through Criminal Court unless resolved in another lawful manner. Coleman remained subject to Juvenile Court authority while awaiting the next announced hearing. Prosecutors must prove the allegations, and both defendants are presumed innocent unless a court finds otherwise.
Author note: Last updated July 15, 2026.