The aggravated-assault allegation rests on evidence collected after a tow-truck worker was wounded during an attempted vehicle recovery.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A recovered .380-caliber handgun, an identification by an injured tow-truck worker and the defendant’s reported statement to police form the central evidence described in the case against a Memphis woman accused of opening fire during the repossession of her Lincoln.
Iysha Chapman, 26, was charged with aggravated assault after the worker was shot in the shoulder during a June 24 encounter on Treadwell Street, according to an affidavit of complaint summarized in court-based reports. Investigators obtained a search warrant and seized a teal Glock containing five live rounds, the affidavit says. The wounded employee later selected Chapman from a six-person photographic lineup. Authorities also recorded a statement in which Chapman allegedly acknowledged firing one shot after saying she had been prevented from getting into the vehicle.
Taken together, those pieces of evidence explain why police arrested Chapman, but they do not settle the criminal case. An affidavit is generally used to establish probable cause at the opening stage of a prosecution. It presents the information investigators relied on when seeking an arrest or charge; it is not a verdict. The defense may contest the accuracy, reliability or legal significance of the statements and identification, while prosecutors must prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt if the case reaches trial.
The physical evidence described publicly is limited. The complaint identifies the seized weapon as a teal .380-caliber Glock and notes the live ammunition inside it. The reviewed reports do not say whether police recovered a fired cartridge case, a projectile or other material that was subjected to ballistic examination. They also do not disclose whether the weapon was registered to Chapman, whether her fingerprints or DNA were found on it or whether laboratory testing connected it to the round that injured the employee.
Identification evidence is another important part of the state’s early account. According to the affidavit, the injured worker viewed photographs of six people and “positively identified” Chapman. The available reports do not provide the lineup instructions, describe how similar the photographs were or state how much time passed before the identification. Such details can become relevant if a defense attorney later challenges the procedure, but no such challenge was reported in the material available for this article.
The case also includes statements attributed to Chapman herself. Police said she told officers she came outside and saw the 2015 Lincoln MKC being taken. She reportedly said she had missed a payment two days earlier but believed a five-day grace period applied. Chapman claimed she tried to enter the Lincoln and drive away, only to be pushed back by one of the workers. She said she felt helpless, reached into her purse and fired the gun, striking the man in the shoulder, according to the complaint.
That account provides an alleged admission to the act of firing, but it also introduces a disputed claim about physical contact before the shot. The tow-truck workers’ version, as summarized in the affidavit, focuses instead on Chapman’s refusal to return the keys and an alleged death threat. One employee said Chapman declared, “I will kill you,” immediately before the gunfire. The available record does not show that either account has been tested through sworn testimony and cross-examination.
The sequence began at about 3:45 a.m., when two employees of a towing and recovery company arrived at the Treadwell Street address where Chapman was staying. They had been sent to recover the Lincoln under a repossession order, the complaint says. Chapman came outside and asked to remove belongings from the vehicle. The workers allowed her to collect the items and told her to contact the lien holder if she wanted to address the underlying payment dispute. The encounter changed when one worker asked Chapman to give back the keys. The affidavit says she refused and told the employees they would have to drag the vehicle away. One employee entered the tow truck and prepared to do that. He reported hearing the threat before the single shot struck his co-worker, who was still outside. The wounded man then got into the truck, and the employees drove away and called emergency dispatchers.
Their departure meant the first responding officers encountered Chapman rather than an active confrontation between the parties. Police interviewed her and later sought authority to search the property. The reports do not say whether officers recorded the interview on body cameras or obtained a written or recorded statement. They also do not identify any independent witnesses who saw the shooting, although investigators may possess information that has not been made public.
Chapman was booked into the Shelby County jail, and her bond was reported as $150,000. A bond determines the conditions under which a defendant may be released while a case is pending; it is not punishment and does not establish guilt. The amount reflects a court’s preliminary release decision based on the information then available. The reviewed sources did not provide a transcript of the bond hearing or identify the factors the judge considered.
The single publicly identified charge was aggravated assault. Tennessee law recognizes aggravated assault in circumstances that can include the use or display of a deadly weapon or the infliction of serious bodily injury. The reports do not specify the exact subsection alleged in Chapman’s charging document, and no conclusion should be drawn about the final grade of the offense or any possible sentence. Those questions depend on the formal charge, later court rulings and, if there is a conviction, applicable sentencing law.
Chapman’s statement about a five-day grace period relates to the financial dispute but does not resolve the evidence surrounding the shooting. The available reports do not quote the loan agreement, identify the lien holder or state when the payment was legally due. They also do not say whether a repossession order had been issued automatically after default or after additional communication with Chapman. Without the contract or creditor records, her belief about the grace period cannot be independently confirmed.
Tennessee’s commercial code allows a secured party to take possession of collateral after a default. A creditor may use judicial proceedings or recover the property without a court order if the repossession can occur without a breach of the peace. That statute provides general context for why recovery employees may arrive to take a financed vehicle, but it does not determine whether every action taken by the workers in this encounter was proper. No civil court ruling on that issue appears in the material reviewed.
Nor does the repossession law decide the criminal questions presented by the gunshot. Prosecutors must address whether Chapman committed each required element of aggravated assault and whether any defense applies. The reported claim that a worker pushed her could be examined alongside the nature of the contact, the degree of any threat, the opportunity to withdraw and the proportionality of the response. The affidavit alone does not provide enough detail to predict how those issues might be argued or decided.
The injury is described consistently as a gunshot wound to the shoulder. One secondary report said the worker was treated in noncritical condition, but the main affidavit-based account does not provide the name of the hospital, the extent of treatment or a long-term prognosis. The employee’s identity has not been published in the sources consulted. His co-worker, who was inside the truck when the shot was fired, also has not been named.
No later reliable report located for this article disclosed a plea, indictment, dismissal or trial date. It is therefore not possible to state that the original charge and bond remained unchanged after the initial proceedings. The evidence described in the affidavit established the public basis for Chapman’s arrest, while the ultimate weight of that evidence remains a matter for the courts. She is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Author note: Last updated July 26, 2026.