Waynesboro murder trial ends in guilty verdict on all counts for Jacob Sipe

WAYNESBORO, Va. (WHSV) - Jacob Sipe was found guilty by a jury Thursday on all counts, including the second-degree murder of Trevor Hill, after a three-day trial in Waynesboro Circuit Court.

The jury deliberated for three and a half hours Thursday, handing down the verdict just after 3:30 p.m. Sipe’s defense attorney said they plan to appeal the verdict and said “this is not over.” Sipe’s attorneys argued he had acted in self defense when shooting Hill in Waynesboro on July 23, 2024.

Sipe will be sentenced for these convictions on June 27, 2025.

Background

On July 23, 2024, the Waynesboro Police Department responded to a shots-fired call on James Avenue in Waynesboro. Once authorities arrived, one person, Trevor Hill, was lying on the porch with multiple gunshot wounds, while a 2-year-old baby and Jacob Sipe were across the street. Sipe was later arrested and charged by the Waynesboro Police Department and the Waynesboro Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office.

Due to a personal matter, the Waynesboro Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office had to relinquish the case to the Augusta County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. WHSV later learned that a personal relationship between defense counsel and prosecutors led to a conflict of interest. Tim Martin and his team stepped up and took over the government’s role in the case.

Sipe’s charges have been amended before, but jurors on Tuesday were informed that Sipe would be facing second-degree murder charges. The last update WHSV got on the case was that the Commonwealth had been pursuing first-degree murder charges.

Day 3: The Verdict is In

Thursday’s proceedings started with each side presenting their closing arguments to the jury. Since the burden of proving guilt is on the Commonwealth, they have the first and last word in their closing statements.

Tim Martin, Augusta County Commonwealth’s Attorney, started his argument by explaining the definition of second-degree murder to the jury.

“Murder is a killing done in anger.”

Martin told the jury they had an easy job in the case against Jacob Sipe. He said that in his experience as a prosecutor, a jury often has to infer who killed someone. In this case, the evidence was clear, he said: Jacob Sipe had killed Trevor Hill. Martin just had to convince the jury if there was intent to kill or not.

Martin gave the jury multiple reasons why he believed Sipe had the intention to kill Hill. His first point of argument was the 911 call made by Skyler Tyler, Hill’s neighbor. In her 911 call, she told the emergency communications officer that Sipe had stood over Hill’s motionless body after he shot him. She then said he started to shout different expletives at Hill like “You’re a piece of s---” and “Motherf---er.” During her phone call, she also saw Sipe throwing furniture around on Hill’s porch, including the chair Hill would regularly sit on.

Martin then argued about the importance of how many shots were fired in this case. In statements to police, Sipe told an officer that Hill fell after the third shot.” Sipe fired six times towards Hill, five of those shots hitting him.

Martin picked apart the defense’s argument. He started with the firearms expert, Curtis Marshall, who testified for the defense. During his testimony on Wednesday, Marshall confirmed where Sipe could be standing in relation to the shell casings found at the scene. Martin said this piece of evidence was crucial because it proved Hill had no escape from Sipe during the shooting.

Martin went on to explain how if someone performs a crime and understands the probable results, they meant to do the crime. In this case, Martin argued that Sipe understood a bullet to the heart would more than likely kill Hill but pulled the trigger anyway.

Martin then reinforced the need for self-defense in American society. He told the jury if someone hits you, you should be allowed to hit back. However, he also said, if someone pops you in the nose, you don’t get to execute them, referencing Sipe’s decision to shoot Hill on his porch.

He then explained to the jury that everyone gets an equal opportunity to live and survive in the U.S., saying “every life is precious.”

During all of Martin’s argument, Hill’s loved ones, who were gathered behind the Commonwealth, were tearful and expressed emotions of sadness.

‘A life has been lost’

Ben Beliles, one of the defense attorneys for Sipe, started his closing statements by telling the jury about the invalidity he found in the Commonwealth’s argument. He told the jury the Commonwealth had the burden to prove guilt because the U.S. has the “innocent until guilty” belief ingrained in law. Presumption of innocence was a common theme in his closing statement.

Beliles said the Commonwealth was unable to provide the full picture, only providing a snapshot for the jury. Beliles went on to speak about the importance of science and ballistics to understand the full picture, which the defense shouldn’t have to do.

Unlike Martin, who praised the Waynesboro Police Department (WPD) for their investigation, Beliles tore investigators’ work apart. He called WPD detectives’ work on the case “shotty” and “unreliable.” Ultimately, he argued the case was not investigated properly and there were “major errors” and inconsistencies in the story.

Martin routinely called this case simple. Martin previously told the jury that it was as simple as “Jacob Sipe shot and killed Trevor Hill maliciously.” Beliles argued the opposite and said there was nothing simple about the case. He pointed out the Commonwealth’s lack of acknowledging the injuries Sipe sustained and the impacts of those injuries.

Commonly throughout his nearly two-hour argument, Beliles told the jury the Commonwealth has no idea what happened before Hill was shot. The only evidence and information about everything before the shooting came from Sipe’s statements to police. Beliles did, however, admit his client was the man who shot Hill. He never argued otherwise, he just argued the reason was self-defense.

“A life has been lost,” Beliles said.

Beliles then compared Sipe’s actions to those commonplace with “guilty people.” After the shooting, Sipe never fled the scene. Instead, he told police he went inside to clean his nose and then went to his car to charge his phone so he could call the police. Beliles boasted how Sipe cooperated with police even while under the influence of cocaine and alcohol.

Beliles did not try to pin Sipe’s actions on drug or alcohol use. Instead he used the scientific data as an insight into the actions Sipe had in reaction to Hill allegedly attacking him. He said Sipe told officers that he had no other choice but to shoot Hill.

Sipe’s defense team described the entire incident as “dynamic and chaotic.” Since the events happened so fast and were traumatic, Beliles quickly told the jury Sipe’s conflicting statements were the product of adrenaline, intoxication and sheer misunderstanding of everything that happened between Sipe and Hill.

“It was a shocking event.”

Beliles berated the Commonwealth’s arguments and emphasized to the jury that the Defense needed to put on evidence because the Commonwealth did not paint a full picture. (Legally, the Commonwealth only needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The judge said the evidence present was sufficient for the jury to reflect on when a motion to strike was made.)

Beliles went on to explain, in carefully elaborate detail, about some of the instructions given to the jury. Ultimately, Beliles continued to scold the Commonwealth for their lack of evidence provided, explain the importance of self-defense as it related to this case, and commanded the jury to acquit Sipe because “there was no evidence of murder in this case.”

After nearly two hours of argument, Beliles passed the torch to Martin, allowing Martin to offer his final words and rebuttal to the jury. Martin’s rebuttal was much shorter than Beliles argument and mostly consisted of examining contradictions in Beliles argument. Martin even told the jury that parts of Beliles argument was “completely false.”

The verdict

After Martin’s rebuttal, the judge gave his final orders to the jury and sent them off to the jury room to deliberate. The 12 men and women who were selected to reside over the case and decide the fate of Jacob Sipe took nearly four hours to deliberate but returned with four guilty verdicts, including one for the second-degree murder charge.

Before his verdict came down, Sipe was smiling in the courtroom. Throughout the trial, he looked nervous at times, but right before he judgement, he smiled while talking to his attorneys. Sipe did not offer any statement to the court. The only words he had said throughout the whole trial came after the judge asked him if he wanted to speak.

“No, sir,” Sipe responded.

Once the jury delivered the verdict on Thursday, most everyone in the courtroom was emotional in some way. Hill’s loved ones were hugging one another but with smiles on their faces. One of Hill’s family members told WHSV they “finally got closure.”

On the other hand, Sipe’s loved ones were also in tears, but ones of sadness. Most of his loved ones held on to each other close with their heads down as the jury confirmed their decision to convict Sipe for the murder of Trevor Hill.

The defense elected to be sentenced by the judge, and Sipe will face his fate on June 27. After the sentencing date was reached, Sipe was remanded to the jury.

In Virginia, Sipe is looking at a potential sentence of 3-54 years in prison for this crime, depending on whether he gets the maximum sentences for his crimes and whether they are concurrent — served at the same time — or consecutive.

Martin told WHSV that he was pleased about the outcome of the case. He said violent crime trials are immensely draining because they’re emotional, especially if the victim in the case had died.

The defense offered a very limited comment to WHSV, but they said “this is not over,” and that they will pursue appeals and any other avenues they can in this case.

Day 2: What Happened on July 23, 2024?

Multiple gunshot wounds

Dr. Brittney Imblum was the medical examiner who testified in court on Wednesday. A medical examiner is tasked with examining the manner and cause of death of someone who died suddenly, unexpectedly and/or violently. In this case, the manner of death was self-evident and neither the defense nor the Commonwealth argued differently — this case was homicidal in nature. However, “homicidal” for a medical examiner does not always mean murder. Homicidal just means someone’s death was caused by another human being. Self defense, which is what Jacob Sipe’s defense is arguing, would be homicidal in nature.

There is a distinction between cause of death and manner of death. Cause of death, sometimes called mechanism of death, is a more specific definition of what actually killed someone. Imbrum said Trevor Hill’s cause of death came from multiple gunshot wounds.

According to the autopsy report, Hill had five separate gunshot wounds scattered across his body.

• One on the right side of his chin
• One in his torso
• One in his left buttock
• One in his left hip
• One in his left leg

Imblum explained the damage caused by each wound. The torso bullet caused significant damage to multiple important organs, including the lungs and the heart. This is the same bullet Tim Martin, the prosecutor, described as “lethal” during his opening statements.

There were also several abrasions and lacerations found on the victim’s head, but Imblum said she couldn’t fully examine the area unless they shaved his head. Martin asked if some of the wounds, specifically the wounds in the lower region of the body, could be shot from someone standing over the body. Imblum confirmed Martin’s suspicions but said she couldn’t tell for certain if that’s what happened in this case.

The defense began by asking a multitude of reasons the gun shot wounds could appear the way they did. Imblum did not deny a single question the defense asked and Ben Beliles, one of the attorneys representing Jacob Sipe, told the jury, “The possibilities are limitless.”

The Commonwealth rested its case after Imblum’s testimony.

Objection

The defense team motioned to strike out multiple charges in the case: second-degree murder, maliciously shooting towards an occupied building and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The defense argued Martin and his team’s presentation of evidence did not prove in any way that Sipe had maliciously pulled the trigger of his gun towards Hill. Malice is a requirement to be convicted of murder in Virginia.

The two sides argued about the definition of malice. In the defense’s case, Beliles described Sipe’s demeanor when law enforcement arrived and how he was cooperative and calm while the investigation was happening. In prior testimonies, the Waynesboro Police Department employees said Sipe caused no issues to any of the investigators on scene.

Martin responded to the defense’s argument by providing examples of Sipe being agitated or angry. He referenced the 911 call made by Skyler Tyler and how she told an emergency communications officer that Sipe was shouting expletives and throwing furniture around after he shot Hill. He also mentioned to the judge that using a deadly weapon, like the firearm in the shooting, is also malicious.

The judge denied the defense’s motion to strike charges.

The Beretta APX A1

The defense called Curtis Marshall, a former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, to testify as an expert in firearms and ballistics. Marshall works with Eagle Security Group as a consultant. He testifies in courts as an expert for a fee, which was more than $4,000 in this case.

Marshall said he prepared for the Sipe case by creating an experiment to test how a Beretta APX A1, the gun legally owned and used by Sipe to shoot Hill, would eject bullet casings. His results depicted inconsistencies with how the crime scene was found, which was the pinnacle of Beliles’ argument. The shell casings in his study were all ejected to the right of the pistol at varying distances. The results at the crime scene were inconsistent with those findings, he said. The Commonwealth argued Sipe was standing on the sidewalk when he shot Hill, and according to Marshall’s experiment, the casings should have launched into the grass. The casings at the scene were mostly found around Hill’s body, in his body and on the sidewalk itself.

Marshall went on to tell the jury that WPD did not “perform the best actions” when securing and analyzing a crime scene involving a firearm. He mentioned the need for measurements and ballistic rods, a device to help accurately determine the direction a projectile is flying. He then told the jury there were potential defects on the shell casings, which could indicate them being stepped on or kicked.

Martin went on to confirm the witness’s expertise, but also used that in his argument. He told the jury Sipe is not a qualified expert in firearms and might not know the proper way to hold and shoot a gun. In Marshall’s experience, he used two hands and shot at the same angle to limit variation. Martin said no one knows how Sipe held the gun while he shot Hill, and maybe the casings could have ejected differently than anticipated.

‘He’s trapped, isn’t he?’

The defense called Detective Blake Marian to the stand to help examine body camera footage of Sipe right before he left for the hospital. Marian described Sipe as “disheveled, bloodied and injured” when he spoke with him for the first time. In the footage, Sipe told Marian he had drunk alcohol and used cocaine a few hours before the shooting.

Marian was one of the first investigators to get a statement from Sipe right after the shooting. In his statement, Sipe told Marian that Hill attacked him out of nowhere, and that’s why he shot him. Sipe said he wanted to go over to Hill’s house to hang out and said that while he was allegedly attacked by Hill, he tried to run away, but Hill continued to pursue him, resulting in the shots fired.

In his statement to Marian, Sipe talked about getting his face “smashed on the concrete” and into a white Mazda pickup truck as well.

When it was Martin’s turn to question Marian, he immediately asked the detective about the validity of specific claims in Sipe’s statement. He presented Marian with a picture of the Mazda and the concrete surrounding the Mazda and asked if there were any signs that he had been slammed against the concrete and/or the truck. Marian explained the lack of dents or pools of blood and said it didn’t match up to his statement.

In Martin’s argument, he detailed the distance between the Mazda and Sipe’s personal car. He asked Marian for his thoughts on the idea that if Sipe wanted to escape, he’d be able to jump in his car and leave but instead chose to follow Hill back to the house. Marian confirmed Martin’s suspicions.

Martin then shifted gears toward the porch, where Hill died, and asked about the alleged positioning of Sipe and Hill. He asked Marian what kind of escape routes Hill could have if Sipe blocked the stairway leading out of the house.

“He’s trapped, isn’t he?” Martin said.

Martin honed in on Sipe’s statement to Marian and asked about the sudden drop of knowledge in Sipe’s statement when asked about the shooting itself. He claimed Sipe had “a detailed description of the wrongdoings Trevor did to him,” but “suddenly forgot” when it involved Sipe shooting Hill. Anything after Sipe pulled the trigger was “a blur,” Martin argued. Marian affirmed those details.

The defense’s last witness of the day was Jacob Sipe’s father, Jeremy Sipe. Jeremy was with Jacob the evening before the shooting occurred. Jeremy testified that the two had dinner together and everything was a “normal day” for the two of them. Jeremy told the jury he went to bed a little bit earlier than usual on July 22, 2024, but his son was “in a good mood” and still at home when he went to bed.

Jeremy said he received a phone call from Marian around 10:30 a.m. on July 23, 2024. The detective gave him a brief description of what was going on and Jeremy had the opportunity to speak with his son. He described Jacob as “pretty upset and disturbed.” Jacob then proceeded to tell his father his perspective of what happened.

Jeremy and his family are the owners of Regal Jewelers in Waynesboro. He said most people who work in the store carry firearms because “shady people” have come to their shop and said it’s best to protect themselves while at work. He told the defense and the jury that’s why he thinks his son bought the gun, since it was commonplace in their family.

However, Martin examined the conversations between Jeremy and his son more closely when it was his time to cross-examine. He talked about Jacob’s aspirations to join the U.S. Coast Guard and how the charge against him could ruin any shot of serving his country.

“Did you f*** up pretty good?” Jeremy Sipe had asked his son over the phone.

Martin continued to pick apart the conversation between Jacob and his father. Martin asked Jeremy, “Did you think he would carry [the gun] around while drunk and high?”

“I can’t think of any reason,” Jeremy responded.

The defense rested its case, and after a short rebuttal presentation by Martin, the court was adjourned for the day.

Day 1: All Rise

Jury trials in the state of Virginia start with jury selection, a meticulous process where both sides of the courtroom and the judge find 14 jurors who are the best fit for the case at hand. The process for Jacob Sipe’s trial was relatively smooth. The jurors were found in the first panel, and neither side objected to the composition of the jury after the selection.

Later, family members and friends of the victim pointed out to WHSV that the composition of the jury did not reflect the people involved in the case. The group of selected jurors was a near-even split of men and women, but no one serving on this jury was African American. The victim in this case, Trevor Hill, was an African American man.

‘Is he breathing?’

Both sides of the courtroom presented their opening statements to the jury. As per usual, the Commonwealth (otherwise known as the Government) started the proceedings and showed the jury their argument.

It’s a fairly simple case ... Jacob Sipe shot and killed Trevor Hill.

Tim Martin, the special prosecutor for this case, showed the jury several different video and audio clips from the day of the shooting. The first clip he presented was the original 911 call made by Hill’s neighbor, Skyler Tyler.

“I think my neighbor got shot,” Tyler told the emergency communications officer.

The courtroom got emotional. Though it is commonplace for the defense to take one side of the room and the prosecutors to take the other, the families of both parties gathered behind each respective side in the audience as well, with Sipe’s loved ones behind the defendant and Hill’s loved ones behind the Commonwealth, making a clear divide of energy in the room. Each side of the courtroom responded to emotional statements in their own way.

For example, Sipe’s loved ones were visibly upset when the prosecution berated Sipe, pointing out clear confessions he made to police while the investigation was happening. On the other hand, Hill’s loved ones were visibly upset when they heard police describe the condition they found Hill in at the scene.

“There’s blood all over his hands ... Oh my gosh, there’s blood all over his hands,” another quote from the primary 911 call said.

Tyler’s call was limited in details because she was across the street, in her own home, while speaking to emergency dispatch. However, she mentioned Sipe shouting several expletives that she could hear from her street.

“You’re a piece of s***,” Tyler recalled Sipe shouting to Hill while standing over him as he was lying face down on the porch.

After the 911 call, Martin recounted several statements made by Sipe when police arrived on the scene. Many of them left visible emotional impacts on some of the jurors and the crowd members when they heard it.

“I pulled the trigger until it wouldn’t pull,” and “He [Hill] went down after the third bullet, but I kept shooting,” were some of the statements uttered by Sipe when police arrived that Martin repeated in the courtroom.

Martin’s opening statement included police body camera footage as well. The footage he pulled and presented was from one of the first officers who answered the call.

“Is he breathing?” a WPD officer asked when Hill was found on the porch.

Police officers did not attempt to revive Hill when they found him. Officers considered him “Dead on Arrival” and proceeded with their investigation. Hill was found with multiple gunshot wounds, including one in his cheek, which dislodged a tooth, and one to the chest, which Martin described as a “lethal” wound.

When police were examining Hill’s body and surveying the scene, they found a distraught 2-year-old right inside the door. Martin said the child could see Hill’s presumed dead body.

“Daddy... Daddy,” the child, later identified as Hill’s young son Jayseon, screamed during the body camera footage.

Martin ended his opening remarks with the same sentiment he started with. He said, “It’s a simple matter,” and told the jury he will convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that Sipe murdered Hill at his home.

‘This is a tragedy’

The defense started by addressing the elephant in the room and told the jurors the case was not about who killed Trevor Hill. Ben Beliles, one of two attorneys representing Sipe, explained to the jury that this case was about intent to kill versus self-defense.

“It’s a tragedy for Trevor ... It’s a tragedy for Jayseon ... It’s a tragedy for Jacob,” Beliles said to the jury.

Beliles further explained the relationship between Hill and Sipe, calling them friends and acquaintances for more than a decade. He said Sipe’s tragedy was losing a long-time friend.

Beliles presented a picture of Sipe to the jury. The picture showed Sipe’s condition throughout the interviews with police and how Tyler described Sipe during her 911 call. His nose was visibly damaged and blood was “pouring” out of it for nearly an hour, Beliles said. He continued to describe Sipe’s behavior and cooperation with law enforcement as the morning unfolded. He said Sipe was “dazed and confused” but cooperated with police in every way he could. Sipe answered every question police asked him, left the gun that he legally purchased, and chose not to flee the scene, even though police found him halfway in his car.

Beliles then told the jury a detail left out by Martin: Hill was Sipe’s cocaine dealer. He said Sipe came over for the night to get high with Hill, not to kill him.

“[Sipe] was absolutely heartbroken,” Beliles said to the jury.

Beliles described the altercation from the defense’s point of view to the jury and told them about a statement Sipe said to police.

“[Sipe] doesn’t know why Trevor attacked him,” Beliles said.

He said the two were fighting one another, and Sipe tried to retreat, but Hill continued to attack him. He said Hill was aware of Sipe carrying a gun but continued to fight him.

“He had no other choice.”

Beliles then explained to the jury how there are flaws in WPD’s investigation. He claimed bullet casings were stepped on and moved around, and rescue squad employees were nearby but never called. He ultimately told the jury that WPD pinned the blame on Sipe instead of investigating.

Witnesses to the stand

Day 1’s witness list was shorter because half the day was dedicated to jury selection. In Virginia, the Commonwealth presents its arguments first because the burden is on them to prove guilt, not the defendant. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the building block of the U.S. legal system and is backed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution, which guarantee due process and the right to a fair trial.

Skyler Tyler, the 911 caller, was the first witness called to the stand.

Much of the Commonwealth’s questions to Tyler invoked answers Martin had already told the jury during his opening statement. During questioning, Tyler was visibly upset, struggling to answer some questions when asked.

A new detail Tyler shared with the jury was Sipe’s demeanor while standing over Hill. She said Sipe threatened Hill and pointed the gun at him while Hill was on the ground. Later, Sipe wiped his hands on Hill’s back, according to her testimony. After a few moments, she explained to the jury what Sipe was doing after standing over Hill’s presumed corpse. Sipe was “throwing around” furniture on Hill’s porch, Tyler added.

Police later confirmed multiple pieces of furniture were knocked over when they arrived.

Martin wrapped up his questions, and the defense was allowed to cross-examine and ask Tyler their own questions.

Beliles began by asking Tyler what details she did not know about the situation. He asked her about any knowledge of conflict before she heard gunshots. She told Beliles and the jury she had not heard anything nor knew anything about a potential fight between Sipe and Hill. The only events she could recall were after Hill was shot by Sipe.

While she was answering a separate question, Beliles rustled through some papers preparing to ask about comments made by the witness. He presented screenshots of a WPD Facebook post where Tyler made some vulgar comments about the situation: “I hope he rots in hell.”

Beliles continuously asked Tyler about the lack of knowledge she had about the two before the shooting. Tyler stood firm in the words she told Beliles and the jury and said many of the things she witnessed did not seem like self defense, and explained an issue she had with the defense’s argument.

“I don’t think [a prior fight between Sipe and Hill] warrants shooting someone in front of their kid,” Tyler said.

After that, Beliles ended his questions for her.

A friend/acquaintance of Hill was called to the stand next. Joseph Caul, 26, was at Hill’s house three hours before the shooting. Caul said he would frequently visit Hill’s house because Hill was very accepting of him, despite Caul describing himself as “having special needs.”

Both sides had fewer questions for Caul, but Martin asked him to describe Sipe’s demeanor at 6 a.m. when he visited. Caul said Sipe was angry at Hill and told the jury about Sipe’s cocaine usage hours before the shooting. Caul then explained what Sipe meant when Sipe told Hill and Caul about the “shooters” he had. Sipe called himself “untouchable,” Caul added.

Caul told the jury Sipe continued to make him uncomfortable by asking personal questions and becoming aggressive. Ultimately, Caul said Hill jumped in to defuse the situation. Caul then left the scene, he said.

Beliles asked Caul if he had called 911 or noticed any physical conflict between Hill and Sipe before he left. Caul denied both of those questions.

“Do you wish you had called 911?” Martin asked in rebuttal.

Many of the other witnesses called to the stand clarified details to the jury or provided explanations to things found at the scene. Multiple WPD officers and investigators took the stand to testify about their experiences and what they saw while responding. More than 100 photos were submitted as evidence for the jurors to reflect on during deliberation.

Copyright 2025 WHSV. All rights reserved.