FirstAlerts

Jazmine Farrens Charged with Manslaughter in Manchester Shooting

Jazmine Farrens faces a manslaughter charge in connection with a fatal February shooting in Manchester, N.H.; the case is undecided and she is presumed innocent.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 12:44 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 12:52 p.m. ET
Jazmine Farrens, of Manchester, N.H., has been with manslaughter in connection with a fatal February shooting, according to wmur.com. The charge stems from allegations that she hid a gun from investigators after the shooting; prosecutors say she is not accused of firing it. The case is only at the charging stage, and no trial has been held, so the matter remains undecided. Farrens is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Prosecutors said the shooting began with a Nerf gun fight, and that Adrian David Garcia Bonilla admitted pointing a real gun at Kade Harrower's chest and pulling the trigger, not knowing it was loaded. Garcia Bonilla was also in the case. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled, as the case has not been resolved.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 20, 2026, 12:44 p.m. ETFirst report

    Two Charged in Manchester Shooting; Woman Accused of Hiding Gun

    Two people have been charged in connection with a fatal February shooting in Manchester, N.H., according to wmur.com. Jazmine Farrens, of Manchester, is charged with manslaughter, though prosecutors say she is not accused of firing the gun. Adrian David Garcia Bonilla is also charged with manslaughter.

    Prosecutors allege that the shooting began with a Nerf gun fight, and that Garcia Bonilla admitted pointing a real gun at Kade Harrower's chest and pulling the trigger, not knowing it was loaded. Farrens is accused of hiding the gun from investigators.

    The charges are allegations, and both defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 16:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 120 Aug 2026, 16:44current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.