JEFFERSON COUNTY, Colo. — A jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts, including assault, against a Jefferson County man who shot a 17-year-old boy in the face. The defense had argued that the firearm was faulty.
The teenager was helping his friend find a spot to take homecoming pictures in 2024 in Conifer when the shooting happened.
Just before 4:30 p.m. Monday, the jury returned a guilty verdict for third-degree assault and illegal discharge of a firearm. The jury found Metz not guilty on two counts of menacing the two teens.
Throughout the trial, prosecutors told the jury this was a clear case of reckless assault while defense attorneys pointed blame at the gun.
Brent John Metz's trial started Wednesday morning in Jefferson County and closing arguments wrapped up on Monday morning.
Metz was arrested shortly after the shooting and formally charged with second-degree assault (recklessly causing a serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon), two counts of felony menacing and illegal discharge of a firearm. All are felonies. He pleaded not guilty to the charges in April 2025.
Summary of Brent Metz's three-day trial
On Sept. 10, 2024, Luke Brookhouser, who was 15 at the time, and Jack Howard, 17 at the time, decided to explore possible spots to take photos of Brookhouser and his girlfriend for homecoming. Howard had a car and the pair headed up to Conifer. When they saw a spot with a lake, they pulled over and Howard parked his car. Seeing it was private property surrounded by a fence and gate, Howard testified that they looked for an intercom to communicate with the homeowners, but did not see one. The teens decided to hop the fence and walk up the driveway to knock on the front door and ask permission to take photos.
However, nobody answered, so they went back to their car, which Howard had parked along the public road, said Deputy District Attorney Christopher Johnson.
Jeffco
Trial starts for Conifer man accused of shooting teen who allegedly trespassed
A surveillance video played in court showed the two boys approach the home and a barn from the long driveway. On the video, the jury could hear one of the boys knock, and another say "No one's here." Then, the two began heading back to their car.
Howard said he remembered seeing a car drive slowly by the property and wondered if it was the homeowner.
“Because nobody was home, I was going to move [my car] because I thought that car was the owner, because I thought I was in the way," he explained.
Howard said he moved his car and they decided Brookhouser would write a note to the homeowners asking to take homecoming photos on the property.
Around that same time, Metz and his girlfriend were driving in separate vehicles after running errands, said defense attorney David Jones. An investigator told the courtroom that the couple used the home as a "getaway," though it was owned by Metz's girlfriend's family. Later in the trial, Metz would dispute this, telling the jury he does indeed own the property.
The girlfriend arrived first and saw an unfamiliar car blocking their driveway and people walking around the property — they were later identified as Brookhouser and Howard. She called Metz to let him know. Metz testified that he tried to calm her down and told her to call police, which she did. He said was able to pull up surveillance footage on his phone and was fairly confident there was "no nefarious activity" occurring.
As he drove toward the home, he said he was not angry, but instead concerned because he did not recognize the people.
Morgan Gibson, the 911 dispatcher who took the initial call for service, testified on Thursday that she told Metz's girlfriend that they should not approach the people on the property. She instructed them to wait until law enforcement arrived. The call was played in the courtroom.
During the phone call, the girlfriend is heard telling Gibson the boys were "all over the place and looking everywhere." She said she knew that because Metz was watching the boys through cameras on the property.
As Metz pulled up to the property, he said he did not "come in hot" and just wanted to have a conversation with whoever was at the home. Prosecutors argued that Metz was indeed angry at the time.
At that same time, Brookhouser said that he was inside Howard's car writing a note for the property owners and Howard testified that he saw a person in a black truck pull up alongside them.
"From what I was still awake for, I just saw the door open. I kind of turned to open my door because I was going to talk to the person, and I saw someone start to get out, and then it all went black," Howard testified.
Moments before, as Metz testified he had always done, he grabbed his gun — a SIG Sauer P320 — from his truck holster and moved it to his hip holster as he was getting out of the vehicle. He testified that he was not drawing his weapon to fire, but rather to switch the holsters.
His defense attorney said Metz's "foot didn't find the ground where he thought it would be." He felt the gun discharge against his belly, Metz testified.
"He loses his balance briefly and boom," one of his defense attorneys said. "This gun goes off in his hand, without his intention, and without his command — it went off.”
The prosecution argued that the shooting may have not been intentional, but it was reckless, which matches the charges against Metz.
The bullet went through the windshield, entered Howard's nose and split into three pieces, including one piece that was lodged behind his left eyeball, Johnson said. He said rather than wait for a law enforcement officer, as dispatch had instructed, Metz decided he would “teach the boys a lesson."
Howard testified that he remembers waking up, seeing blood and thinking he was going to die.
Local
'I thought I was going to die': Teen shot by former town council member testifies on day two of Jefferson County trial
"My mouth was on fire, and it felt like my upper lip was gone, and I could taste little fragments of something in my mouth, a bunch of blood," Howard told the jury.
Brookhouser said he remembered Metz saying "Oh sh**, I shot a kid," and "Oh sh**, my gun went off" after the shooting. The defense attorneys tried to cast doubt upon the validity of the first statement about shooting a child. Brookhouser said he did not hear Metz apologize after the incident.
Metz said he tried to help Howard with his injuries, something Brookhouser contested.
"I feel horrible this happened to these two young men — it’s something I will struggle with for the rest of my life," he said on the stand.
Jeffco
Defendant who shot teen in face takes stand, testifies gun malfunctioned
The jury was shown photographs of Howard's injuries and the blood found in the car. They also were shown body-worn camera footage from the scene.
Howard spent three days in the hospital and three bullet fragments were extracted from his face. He said he still suffers from the impacts today. He has a hard time breathing through his right nostril and sometimes loses sight in his left eye, he said.
He said he was not allowed to view the body-worn camera footage from the shooting before the trial, so his testimony was based solely on his memory. Still, Howard's account aligned closely with video evidence shown to the courtroom.
During the three-day trial, the defense argued that the gun malfunctioned. They also questioned how the boys remember the shooting.
On Friday, the defense called Edward Wilks, a gun store owner and firearm instructor, to testify. He has owned a gun store in Rifle for more than 25 years. While on the stand, he testified that there are several ways that the type of firearm involved in the shooting — a SIG Sauer P320 — can unintentionally fire.
“I will not stock them," Wilks said. "I won’t sell them because I know they’re dangerous."
Wilks said he was able to make Metz's SIG Sauer P320 fire without pulling the trigger, and only by touching the trigger slightly on the side.
Metz testified that he had no knowledge of the controversy surrounding the SIG Sauer P320.
Derek Watkins, the prosecution's expert witness in firearms design and manufacturing, told the courtroom that he ran tests on the SIG Sauer P320 that was owned by Metz, and he found that it would not fire unless a trigger was pulled. He called making the gun fire without pulling the trigger a "parlor trick" where people partially pull a trigger, defeating the safeties on the weapon, making it malfunction. Watkins said that is a method he has observed in the past when individuals claim they have made a gun fire without pulling a trigger.
According to SIG Sauer, "the P320 cannot, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull."
In a statement to Denver7, SIG Sauer wrote: "The design and engineering of the P320 makes it impossible to fire without a trigger pull. For additional information, please visit the websites below, including details on two recent federal court dismissals with one at Colorado federal court. P320 Truth website, Colorado federal court dismissal, Massachusetts federal court dismissal"
The gun's single spent shell casing was found stuck in the chamber of the gun after the shooting.
Wilks said that is proof that the gun malfunctioned.
"It was consistent with holding it loosely... It’s not consistent with someone holding a gun and pointing it at someone," he said.
The defense also brought in psychology professor Deryn Strange, an expert in memory distortion, to speak about how memories can be altered as a trauma response.
Eugenio Liscio, who specializes in trajectory inspection and now applies his education in aerospace engineering to forensics, showed the courtroom computer models of the trajectory of the bullet. Liscio described the gunshot hole in the windshield as elliptical. Had the gun been directly pointed at the windshield, the hole would have been more circular, according to Liscio. The prosecution pushed back on this and noted Liscio's report, which reads that definitive bullet holes cannot be established with absolute certainty.
After Metz's testimony on Friday, both sides rested and the jury was dismissed for the weekend.
Closing arguments wrap up Monday
Closing arguments were heard in the trial of Brent Metz on Monday morning.
“Let’s talk about what really happened that day,” said Johnson, as he began speaking to the jury.
Johnson revisited the events of the day — the two teenage boys going onto the Conifer property, knocking on the barn door, and realizing no one was home. Howard and Brookhouser then walked back to their car, where they began to write a note asking the homeowners if they could use the property for homecoming pictures.
The movements of the boys on the property are verified by the surveillance footage, which Johnson emphasized.
“You know that. You saw that,” Johnson told the jury.
The jury also heard the 911 call made by Metz’s girlfriend reporting the boys on the property, where she tells the dispatcher she would still like the teens “trespassed” even if they were gone by the time law enforcement arrived.
Then, Johnson said Metz arrived and proceeded to charge the boys and block their car in with his truck. The prosecutor said this is where the debate of the case lies.
Brookhouser testified that Metz exited his truck in an aggressive manner when he pulled up alongside the boys. Metz argued he tripped while getting out of his truck, and the gun fired accidentally.
“Which one of those makes more sense?” Johnson asked the jurors.
Johnson said the defense called expert witnesses, who charged a significant amount for their services, to argue there is reasonable doubt about how Metz acted that day in September 2024. However, Johnson said what the defense team was really trying to do was confuse the issue.
The prosecutor said what this case really comes down to is if Metz pointed the gun at the boys, at any point in the situation, and acted recklessly as a result.
He said the defense is trying to “gaslight” Brookhouser into thinking his recollection of events is inaccurate. To prove what Brookhouser is telling the jury, about how Metz acted upon exiting his truck and then at the scene, Johnson referenced four times on the day of the shooting where Brookhouser told investigators what he repeated while on the witness stand.
Those statements were all variations of the same sentiment: that Metz pulled out his gun and shot at the boys. Johnson said Brookhouser has never had a different explanation of what happened.
Johnson reiterated that both of the boys’ version of events has never wavered, and that they do not embellish their accounts of the day.
Howard lost consciousness when he was shot, but as Johnson noted, has never tried to claim that he suddenly recalls the moment the gun was fired.
Then, Johnson turned to Metz’s testimony when he was called to the witness stand in his own defense. Metz did not directly admit that a gun is considered a deadly weapon, something Johnson called an act of self-preservation. Instead, Metz said that a gun has “the potential to be” a deadly weapon.
Metz also denied having known about any alleged issues with the gun in this case, a SIG Sauer P320. Johnson questioned the validity of that claim, calling it an “expensive hobby,” and asking the jury if they believe that an experienced gun owner would not research a firearm before purchasing it.
Johnson continued to tell the jury that Metz knew it was children on his property, and knew there was no danger in the situation. The prosecutor told the jury this is not a case of self-defense or defense of property.
Instead, Johnson said Metz knew the gun was loaded at the time of the interaction.
"He’s acting out of anger and he knows he’s escalating that situation,” Johnson said.
Prosecutors do not have to prove Metz’s actions were purposeful or intentional. They must only prove he was acting recklessly at the time.
When it was time for defense attorney Chris Decker to present his final argument to the jury, he began by addressing Brookhouser’s testimony.
“They have to defend Luke’s story, which is completely discredited by all the physical evidence,” Decker said.
Decker continued to state that there are millions of handguns in society, and that accidents sometimes happen.
“They don’t like the truth,” Decker said about the prosecution. “That P320 is a train wreck.”
It was a train wreck based on a defective weapon, Decker asserted, saying the firearm went off as Metz stumbled out of his truck.
“He didn’t throw caution to the wind,” Decker claimed about his client. “This weapon is unsafe, and it went off in Brent Metz’s hand.”
According to the defense team, Metz was not angry when he approached the boys, and instead was “determined” to speak to them. Metz’s girlfriend was scared that day because her former partner, before Metz, had been a “dangerous man,” Decker said.
“They have to create the drama. They have to make Brent Metz angry and reckless, and all the things he’s not,” Decker said to the jury.
Decker said the jury must determine if this was a crime or a horrible accident, before asking them to acquit Metz on all charges.
In prosecutors' brief rebuttal argument before the jury began deliberating, Senior Deputy District Attorney Brian Hassing said the defense team wants jurors to believe that an experienced shooter like Metz somehow accidentally discharged a firearm.
Instead, Hassing said Metz confronted the boys like “the ultimate get-off-my-lawn guy” with a loaded gun.
"It’s not an accident. Guns don’t just go off. Find the defendant guilty,” Hassing said.
The jury must decide the fate of Metz on four different counts: second-degree assault, a charge of menacing for the two boys each, and illegal discharge of a firearm.
Jury deliberations began just after 10:30 a.m. on Monday.
A jury question was read aloud to the courtroom a little after noon. The question asked what jurors should do if they do not agree on the verdict.
Verdict in Brent Metz case
The jury in this case returned a mixed verdict just before 4:30 p.m. on Monday. The judge read it outloud as Metz stood up in the courtroom.
He was found guilty of third-degree assault — a lesser charge than second-degree assault — and illegal discharge of a firearm. The jury found him not guilty on the two menacing charges.
