Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a minor car accident outside a Safeway parking lot, Brittany Shantel Carrington and her three passengers, including her teenage daughter, became involved in a physical altercation with Brooklyn Brown and Marylynn Jones, the occupants of the other vehicle. The situation escalated from an exchange of insurance information to a brawl. During the fight, Carrington retrieved an umbrella from her car and, according to testimony, used it to strike the windshield of Brown’s vehicle and hit Jones, who sustained injuries. Police arrived and arrested Carrington, recovering the umbrella from her car.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia presided over a bench trial. The trial judge found the facts surrounding the altercation unclear but ultimately credited Brown’s identification of Carrington as the person who broke the windshield and struck Jones with the umbrella. The court found Carrington’s account not credible and determined that she acted out of anger rather than self-defense. Carrington was convicted of simple assault, destruction of property less than $1000, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon (attempted PPW). She was sentenced to probation and fines, with the execution of the sentence suspended.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed Carrington’s sufficiency of evidence claims de novo. The court affirmed the convictions for simple assault and destruction of property, finding sufficient evidence and no error in the trial court’s credibility determinations or rejection of self-defense. However, the appellate court reversed and vacated the conviction for attempted PPW, holding that the evidence did not establish the umbrella as a “dangerous weapon” under D.C. law in this instance, as there was insufficient proof that it was likely to produce death or great bodily injury in the manner used. View "Carrington v. United States" on Justia Law

After an argument in a third-floor apartment in northeast Washington, D.C., Clement Austin left the premises. Immediately afterward, five gunshots were detected outside the apartment by the ShotSpotter system. Marcia Austin, his aunt, called 911, identifying her nephew as the shooter and describing his appearance and vehicle. Police responded within minutes, apprehended Mr. Austin nearby, and used a key found on him to unlock a blue-green car parked near the apartment, where they recovered a loaded pistol. DNA analysis of the gun’s magazine indicated a high likelihood that Mr. Austin’s DNA was present. Five shell casings matching the gun’s caliber were found outside the apartment. Ms. Austin initially told police she saw Mr. Austin fire the gun, but at trial, she testified she did not see who fired the shots.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia presided over the trial. The government moved to admit the 911 call as an excited utterance. After hearing arguments and Ms. Austin’s testimony about her emotional state and prior traumatic experiences with gun violence, the trial court admitted the call. The government also impeached Ms. Austin’s trial testimony with her prior statements to police. The jury convicted Mr. Austin of unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, unlawful discharge of a firearm, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of the 911 call. The court held that ample direct and circumstantial evidence supported the convictions, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 911 call as an excited utterance. The court affirmed Mr. Austin’s convictions. View "Austin v. United States" on Justia Law

During a protest in Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., police officers were called to remove demonstrators attempting to tear down a statue. The government alleged that Luis Rivera threw two large, T-shaped metal objects at a line of law enforcement officers, injuring two officers. Video evidence and witness testimony identified Rivera as the individual who threw the objects. Rivera was subsequently arrested and charged with multiple counts of assault on a police officer (APO), including felony and misdemeanor charges.The case was tried in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The jury acquitted Rivera of the more serious felony charges but found him guilty of two counts of misdemeanor APO. During trial, Rivera’s counsel sought to cross-examine several officers about disciplinary matters and potential biases, but the trial judge limited these inquiries, mostly on relevance grounds. After the jury began deliberations, it asked whether the government needed to prove Rivera intended to injure a specific officer. The trial court responded that it was sufficient for the government to show Rivera intended to harm any officer in the group.On appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Rivera challenged the trial court’s response to the jury’s note and the limitations placed on his cross-examination of police witnesses. The appellate court held that any error in the trial court’s instruction regarding intent was harmless, as Rivera conceded the general accuracy of the response. The court also found that any error in limiting cross-examination was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, since the officers in question did not provide identification evidence and the video evidence was decisive. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Rivera’s convictions. View "Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

In July 2015, Jerome Diggs was fatally shot multiple times. Before dying, Diggs identified Gary Proctor as the shooter in calls and statements to bystanders. Witnesses placed Proctor near the scene, and forensic evidence linked ammunition found in Proctor’s room to the murder weapon. Security footage showed Proctor exchanging his phone, which contained incriminating photos, the day after the murder. Investigators uncovered possible motives, including a drug debt, a dispute over drug sales, and Diggs’s anticipated testimony at a civil protection order (CPO) hearing involving Proctor’s family.The government charged Proctor with first-degree premeditated murder while armed and related firearm offenses in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The trial court made several pretrial evidentiary rulings, including admitting Diggs’s statements about Proctor’s attempt to prevent his CPO testimony under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine. During trial, Proctor moved for mistrial multiple times, citing references to his prior incarceration and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument. The trial court denied these motions, issued curative instructions, and ultimately the jury convicted Proctor on all counts. At sentencing, the court took judicial notice of Proctor’s prior murder conviction, allowing a life sentence without release.On appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Proctor challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of mistrial motions, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing procedures. The Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mistrial or admitting evidence, and sentencing procedures were proper. The court declined to address ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, granting Proctor thirty days to file a motion under D.C. Code § 23-110 to develop the record on those claims. View "Proctor v. United States" on Justia Law

A woman was carjacked at gunpoint while filling her car at a gas station in Southeast D.C. The assailant, a stranger to her, wore a hood and brandished a gun, demanding her car keys. She focused mainly on the weapon during the brief encounter, only glancing at his face at the very end. Several hours later, police arrested Andrew Patrick driving her stolen vehicle about four miles away. Officers called the victim to the scene, where Patrick was handcuffed and positioned next to her car, flanked by police. She identified him as her assailant during two drive-by show-up procedures and later in court.The case was tried in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Patrick moved to suppress the victim’s identifications, arguing the show-up procedures were highly suggestive and unnecessary, given that he was already under arrest and a lineup or photo array could have been used. The trial court denied the motion, finding the procedures were not unduly suggestive and that the identifications were reliable, citing the victim’s opportunity to observe the assailant and her certainty.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed whether admitting the identifications violated Patrick’s due process rights. The court held that the show-up procedures were extraordinarily and unnecessarily suggestive, as Patrick was already under arrest and there was no urgency requiring a show-up. The identifications lacked independent indicia of reliability, given the victim’s limited opportunity to observe the assailant and her generic description. The court found constitutional error in admitting the identifications and reversed Patrick’s convictions for armed carjacking and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, but affirmed his other weapons-related convictions, finding those were not impacted by the identifications. View "Patrick v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant was convicted in 2010 of several offenses, including aggravated assault while armed, after shooting an individual who was set to testify against his brother. The victim suffered serious injuries. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 336 months in prison, a sentence that was below the statutory maximum for the most serious offense. After an initial appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded for merger of certain offenses and resentencing. The trial court resentenced the appellant to the same term, and the Court of Appeals again affirmed, rejecting arguments that the sentence was improperly enhanced based on prior convictions.Subsequently, the appellant succeeded in having one of his prior convictions vacated. He then moved for resentencing in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, arguing that his sentence had been enhanced based on the now-vacated conviction and that his two remaining prior convictions should not have counted separately for enhancement purposes. The trial court granted resentencing, but determined that the two remaining convictions qualified as separate prior felonies under the relevant statute and resentenced the appellant to 240 months, again below the statutory maximum but above the advisory range in the Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court erred in applying the sentencing enhancement statute when the two prior convictions were adjudicated together. The court declined to reach the substantive statutory interpretation question, holding that because the sentence imposed was below the statutory maximum, it was not reviewable on the grounds asserted. The court reaffirmed that discretionary sentencing within statutory limits, even if based on an alleged misapplication of the Guidelines or enhancement statutes, is not subject to appellate review unless it involves materially false factual information. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "Johnson v. United States" on Justia Law

A man was convicted by a jury of several offenses related to a shooting outside a nightclub in Washington, D.C. in July 2021. The evidence showed that the defendant, who was twenty years old at the time, shot another individual and then hid the firearm. He was identified by a witness, and DNA evidence linked him to the recovered handgun. The defendant initially told police he was not the shooter, but at trial, he admitted to firing the gun, claiming self-defense.Prior to trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the defendant moved to dismiss charges related to carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. He argued that the District’s laws, which require individuals to be at least twenty-one years old to obtain a firearm registration or license, violated the Second Amendment, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The trial court denied the motion, finding the age-based restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment and historical firearm regulation. At trial, the government impeached the defendant’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between his initial statements and his trial testimony. The jury convicted him on all counts.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the constitutionality of the District’s age-based firearm registration and licensing statutes and the propriety of the government’s arguments regarding the defendant’s credibility. The court held that the age-based statutes are constitutional because they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also found that the government’s arguments about the defendant’s change in defense theory were not improper. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for the limited purpose of merging certain convictions and resentencing as necessary. View "Picon v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant was convicted of simple assault with a bias enhancement after an incident at a Metro station. The government’s evidence showed that the appellant approached a group, made derogatory remarks about their sexual orientation, and physically assaulted one of them multiple times. The assailant was later apprehended at a different Metro station and identified as the appellant. The charges were eventually narrowed to simple assault with a bias enhancement, and the appellant was found guilty by a jury.Prior to trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant objected to the composition of the jury venire, arguing that it did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, as only three of fifty-four potential jurors appeared to be African American. The trial judge denied the motion to strike the panel, finding that the appellant had not shown systematic exclusion of a group from the jury selection process. The judge also denied a subsequent, untimely request for access to jury selection records, reasoning that the request came only after the motion to strike had been denied and that no prior efforts had been made to obtain such records.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the fair cross-section claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of the arresting officer and the circumstances of the arrest. The court also held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike the jury panel or the belated request for jury selection records, finding that the denial was based on the untimeliness of the request rather than an improper threshold requirement. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law

The appellant was represented by an attorney in a criminal contempt proceeding after allegedly violating a civil protective order. During the course of representation, the appellant twice made statements to his attorney threatening to kill the Assistant Attorney General prosecuting his case, including specific language and gestures indicating an intent to cause harm. The attorney, disturbed by these threats, initially sought to withdraw from representation and later disclosed the threats to the court after being ordered to do so. The attorney subsequently testified before a grand jury and at trial regarding the threats, which led to the appellant being charged and convicted by a jury of threatening a public official and obstruction of justice.Following conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant challenged the admissibility of his attorney’s testimony, arguing that the statements were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the threats were not made for the purpose of seeking legal advice and thus were not privileged. On appeal, a division of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals initially vacated the convictions, holding that the statements were privileged and their admission was not harmless error. The United States successfully petitioned for en banc review, and the full court vacated the division’s decision, limiting the scope of review to the attorney-client privilege issue.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications that themselves constitute criminal threats to cause death or serious bodily harm. The court reasoned that such threats are an abuse of the attorney-client relationship and fall outside the privilege, regardless of whether the technical elements of the privilege are otherwise met. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s admission of the attorney’s testimony and remanded the case for consideration of the appellant’s remaining arguments. View "Moore v. United States" on Justia Law

A woman returning home late at night observed a man, later identified as the defendant, standing near the entrance of their shared condominium building with his lower body exposed. The man, wearing a sweatshirt that did not cover his genitalia, followed the woman as she entered the building, attempted to force his way inside, and did not try to cover himself. After a confrontation inside the building, the woman took what she believed to be the man’s phone and exited to call the police. The man followed her outside, continued to expose himself, and engaged in a physical altercation with her.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially convicted the defendant of lewd, indecent, or obscene acts in violation of D.C. Code § 22-1312 after a bench trial. The conviction was vacated following a post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, and a new trial was scheduled. The government’s request to continue the trial, due to the unavailability of the key witness, was granted over the defendant’s objection. At the second trial, the court again found the defendant guilty, concluding that his exposure on the walkway in front of the building—an area open to public view—constituted a violation of the statute.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that D.C. Code § 22-1312 is not limited to conduct occurring on public property; rather, it applies to indecent exposures in any location “in public,” meaning in open view or before the public at large, regardless of property ownership. The court also determined that any error in granting the government’s motion to continue the trial was harmless, as the defendant failed to show prejudice. The conviction was affirmed. View "Flowers v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law