Prosecutors say Tahj Wall executed Melvin Hopper execution-style and displayed the body during a disturbing six-hour drive.

The Crime

In Gaston County, NC, Tahj Wall, 24, has been found guilty of first-degree murder for the execution-style shooting of his boyfriend, Melvin Hopper, in May 2021. Prosecutors revealed Wall shot Hopper in the back of the head, then proceeded to drive around with his body in the passenger seat for six hours, even showing it to others during the macabre trip.

Disturbing Post-Crime Behavior

According to court testimony, after shooting Hopper, Wall didn’t seek help or contact authorities. Instead, he drove through the community with the body beside him and allegedly displayed it to at least two people—a neighbor and another individual—with one person saying Wall showed it off in a show of dominance .

Defense: Self-Defense Claim

Wall’s defense argued he acted in self-defense, claiming Hopper had a gun and had been physically abusive. Wall said he was scared and that’s why he drove around questions and looking to speak with his mother before turning himself in. But prosecutors countered there was no evidence of any gun other than Wall’s, and no sign Hopper posed an immediate threat.

Verdict and Sentence

A jury unanimously convicted Wall, who now faces a mandatory life sentence in prison, with no possibility of parole. The verdict comes after a judge rejected his self-defense argument. Sentencing is scheduled for the near future.

Why This Case Matters

Chilling conduct after the crime: Driving with a corpse and displaying it demonstrates extreme callousness.

Limits of self-defense: The jury found no credible evidence supporting Wall’s self-defense narrative.

Safety and domestic violence: While claims of past abuse were cited by defense, prosecutors emphasized that evidence failed to support them in the threatening context.

The gruesome details revealed during trial—including Wall’s disturbing cavalier behavior with Hopper’s body—led to a first-degree murder conviction and a life sentence. The case underscores how the legal standard separates genuine emergency self-defense from calculated, violent crime.