Collins Agyei’s convictions for malicious wounding and using a firearm in a felony stand after the Court of Appeals of Virginia rejected his challenge to how a trial judge addressed a prosecution disclosure error. The appeal concerned whether that remedy was sufficient—not whether the doctor’s mistaken testimony should have been corrected. FFXnow reported that the court’s October 27 memorandum opinion also rejected Agyei’s arguments about recorded statements, speedy trial and the evidence identifying him as the shooter.
The remedy, not the error, was central
The case arose from the February 2023 shooting of Esther Arko, Agyei’s former girlfriend and the mother of his child. She was shot six times outside a Mount Vernon apartment building, and the jury ultimately convicted Agyei of malicious wounding and the related firearm offense, according to FFXnow’s account of the case.
At trial, Dr. Erick Teicher mistakenly described Arko as having vocal cord paralysis; he later realized he had confused her with another patient and told the prosecutor, FFXnow reported. FFXnow reported that the prosecutor did not share the error with the defense, and the Fairfax County Times reported that the information was not provided to the defense or the courts.
The circuit court found a Brady violation, struck Teicher’s testimony and dismissed the aggravated portion of the malicious-wounding charge. Agyei argued on appeal that the violation required dismissal of the charges, but the appeals court concluded the trial court’s measures adequately addressed the prejudice, according to FFXnow’s report on the ruling.
Other Virginia cases show remedies depend on the record
Virginia appellate decisions illustrate that a Brady violation does not automatically produce one fixed remedy. In a separate Petersburg case decided June 2, 2026, the Court of Appeals upheld a trial judge’s decision to vacate a conviction and order a new trial rather than dismiss the charges. That case involved different facts; it provides an example of another remedy considered after a Brady violation, not a ruling on Agyei’s case. The court’s Petersburg opinion explains that the trial judge acted within the court’s discretion.
A 2006 Spotsylvania County case addressed a different question: whether undisclosed impeachment information created a reasonable probability that the outcome would have changed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after a bench trial, finding no such probability; unlike Agyei’s jury trial, the judge in that case was the factfinder. The 2006 opinion supplies legal context for assessing prejudice, but does not determine whether the remedy in Agyei’s case was appropriate.
The Agyei opinion is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication, according to FFXnow. The convictions remain in place; both reports say the defense was not told about the disclosure error, and the Fairfax County Times also reported that the courts were not told. The case-specific question of prejudice remains distinct from the broader examples in Virginia appellate law.
