A man accused of murder had his alibi challenged yesterday as his trial continued in the Supreme Court.

While Nasaje Anderson has said he was with his drug supplier and a female friend at the time Letrae Doeman was fatally shot, he refused to identify either under cross-examination.

“It’s a very serious situation,” Mr Anderson told the court. “I don’t want to be called a snitch or have certain people come around.”

Mr Anderson has been charged alongside Aaron Perinchief, Jukai Burgess and QuaZori Brangman with the murder of Mr Doeman, and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. All have denied the offences.

The court previously heard that Mr Doeman was the pillion passenger on a motorcycle that came under gunfire in Flatts at about 1.10am on July 1, 2022.

Mr Anderson told the court that on the night of the shooting, he had gone to the home of a drug dealer, whom he identified only as his “plug”, before midnight and remained there for at least an hour.

He said he agreed to take a bike to Mr Perinchief’s home in Well Bottom, Southampton, for the “plug” and slept in Mr Perinchief’s car before he was picked up by Mr Brangman and taken to Mr Burgess’s house in St David’s in the morning.

Mr Anderson said that while there, he received a message that police were in the area and, after Mr Brangman made a comment about “s***” in his car, grabbed a trash bag from the vehicle and took it to some nearby trees.

He said that police then arrived at the scene so he threw the bag, later found to contain clothing, a short distance and attempted to flee.

Under cross-examination by Jerome Lynch KC, counsel for Mr Perinchief, Mr Anderson maintained that he was “definitely” a person of good character, despite plotting to help Mr Brangman steal a bike.

“Sometimes we all venture off and do things here and there,” he added.

Mr Anderson also accepted that he was a drug dealer, but that he sold only cannabis, not crack or heroin.

Questioned about the night of the murder, he said that he had gone to buy cannabis from his “plug” after a conversation with Mr Burgess, who could not pick it up himself because he was wearing an ankle monitor.

However, he accepted that Mr Burgess was only under a curfew and could have collected the drugs the next day.

Asked if there was some urgency to get the drugs that night, he said: “We didn’t have no weed there. That’s what the urgency was there.”

Questioned about why he agreed to take the motorcycle to Well Bottom at 1am rather than wait until the next morning, Mr Anderson said it did not occur to him to ask.

He also denied that he had given Mr Perinchief a “cock-and-bull” story about running out of petrol to explain why he needed to go to Well Bottom.

Mr Anderson accepted that he had not given his alibi to police and had not provided a statement to lay out his defence, despite orders from the court to do so.

Mr Lynch said: “The state is accusing you of murder. Not an accidental murder, not one that happened to come out of a fight — an assassination. And yet you told no one about the alibi until a few days ago.”

Mr Lynch also asked Mr Anderson whether he would provide the password for his phone, which was still in police possession, to which he declined, stating: “Why should I?”

Susan Mulligan, counsel for Mr Brangman, also cross-examined Mr Anderson, who said that he had become friendly with her client through their shared interest in motorcycles.

He said that those in the motorcycle community are known to let each other ride their bikes and loan each other articles of clothing including gloves.

“Gloves definitely got passed around,” he said. “When you are popping [wheelies] your hands sweat. If you are up, you can easily fall off. Most times gloves are mandatory.”

Mr Anderson denied a suggestion that when Mr Brangman came to pick him up from Well Bottom, he had taken two bags of clothing out from under a bike seat and placed them in Mr Brangman’s car.

“They would not have fit under the bike seat,” he said. “Those bags wouldn’t fit under there.”

He also denied a suggestion that he took a trash bag from Mr Burgess’s house and put the bags from the car in it after being warned about police in St David’s.

Adley Duncan, for the Crown, also questioned Mr Anderson about his clothing and his movements.

The defendant accepted that he had a sweatshirt like one found in the bag of clothing, but could not say whether he still had it or where it was, and that he wore small-sized shirts like one found in the bag.

While he maintained that he was not assigned the number 4 when playing football for St David’s, he accepted that he had bought a pair of football shorts with that number and was seen in online videos wearing them off the field.

Mr Anderson told the court that his female friend had given him a ride to the “plug” and that he had left his bike at his house.

Asked how the bike came to be outside the home of Mr Burgess when police arrived the following morning, Mr Anderson said he would allow others to borrow the vehicle and left the keys in it.

“I don’t mind people using my bike,” he said. “It’s nothing to me. In St David’s, no one is going to take something from me.”

Mr Anderson said a phone that belonged to him was also left in the bike, but that he only used it for banking.

He told the court he knew who had borrowed his bike that evening, but that he declined to name the individual.

Asked whether he was surprised to see the bike at the property, he said: “I was kind of surprised, but at the time I didn’t even see the bike.”

The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers