NORFOLK

Jesse T. Brown was shot in the back two years ago by a white man driving a pickup.

That much of the unsolved homicide police know for sure.

The 24-year-old video game lover and wannabe rap artist was walking to the corner store on Lynnhaven Parkway, not far from his home on Millington Drive in Virginia Beach. His wife, a Navy enlistee, was out at a club with a friend.

Brown's family has been "suffering," as his father put it, that no one has been arrested.

But now they are equally perplexed at why Brown's insurance company is withholding a $100,000 payment: The company has identified Brown's wife, Aspen Smith, as a suspect in the homicide, which was news to everyone, including Smith.

Brown, the assistant manager at a video game store, was talking on his cell phone and walking to the corner store the night of Dec. 1, 2007. A white man in his 20s driving a black pickup stopped near Brown, asked for directions and then opened fire. Brown's friend, on the other end of the phone, heard the gunshots and then heard nothing.

Brown's father, Timothy Brown Sr. of Laurinburg, N.C., said he checks in with the investigator, Detective Ray Pickell, about once every other month, but the case has been cold for quite some time.

"I've been suffering trying to figure out what's been going on," he said.

"I've always been told that if you can't do something in the first 48 hours, you're not going to find the person."

Brown and Smith had been married for about four years at the time of the killing. In the event of her husband's death, she was listed as the benefactor on a $100,000 policy under the family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, managed by The Prudential Insurance Co. of America.

Seventeen days after her husband's death, Smith put in for the benefit. It's been on hold ever since.

In June 2008, Prudential sent a letter to Pickell asking whether any of Brown's next of kin were suspects in the homicide. Pickell, in a handwritten note, responded, "No one has been ruled out as a suspect including Aspen J. Smith."

Two weeks ago, Prudential filed a federal lawsuit here seeking the court's guidance on who should receive the $100,000 payment. It is unclear why the company waited more than 1-1/2 years from that letter before filing the suit.

"If it is determined that Smith intentionally killed the insured, then Smith would forfeit any right to the death benefit," the suit says.

"Prudential has no interest in the death benefit payable and respectfully requests that this court determine to whom said benefits should be paid," the suit states.

When reached last week, Pickell said the case remains open, but he would not comment on any possible suspects.

Smith, reached by phone last week, seemed befuddled to be named as one.

"I don't know anything about it," she said. "I just heard."

She said she was not even aware of the lawsuit. She declined to comment any more until she sought advice.

Federal law, as well as Virginia statute, prohibits life insurance payments to beneficiaries convicted of crimes in the death of the policy holder, commonly known as the slayer statute. But it becomes murky when someone is simply a suspect.

A Prudential spokeswoman declined to comment, and the company's attorney handling the litigation did not respond to phone and e-mail messages.

Prudential and other insurance companies frequently turn to the courts to determine policy benefactors in cases involving homicides. A search of the federal court system found a number of similar cases, either pending or resolved.

In a New Hampshire case last year, Prudential initially refused to pay a $200,000 benefit to a husband who was suspected in the death of his wife.

He was never charged and later was found to have acted in self-defense after his wife fired a shotgun near him. The insurance company settled the case, paying the husband half the benefit and her brother the other half.

On the Peninsula, an insurance company refused to pay a $400,000 benefit to a Navy wife after she became a suspect in her husband's murder. Catherina Voss was later convicted of the crime. The benefit went to their children.

The lawsuit against Smith is pending in Norfolk U.S. District Court. No hearings have been set.

Another wrinkle in the case is a part of the law known as the "extended slayer's rule," which may prohibit other relatives of the deceased from receiving the money if Smith does not get it. That's why the suit also names Brown's father and mother, as well as Smith's parents, as defendants in the case.

Timothy Brown was not aware of the suit, either. More important, he said, he never believed Smith was involved in the slaying.

"I have no idea why they suspect her," he said.

Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com