ALAZAJUAN M. GRAY and CLIFTON SMITH v. UNITED STATES.
2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 383
D.C.2016Background
- In September 2012 Gray and Smith were tried jointly for multiple Metro robberies: an armed robbery of Gerald McIntosh on Sept. 21 and an unarmed cellphone snatching of Katherine Takai on Sept. 28; related assault/harassment events occurred on Sept. 28.
- McIntosh and two friends identified Gray and Smith for the Sept. 21 armed robbery; video, cellular-location data, and four eyewitnesses supported that charge.
- Takai could not identify either defendant; she described one robber with short hair in a light-blue shirt and another with dreadlocks in a white T‑shirt; police later recovered Takai’s phone near where Smith was detained.
- At the Sept. 28 Fort Totten encounter McIntosh identified and led to the arrest of Gray and Smith; officers found Takai’s phone in a nearby park after Smith’s detention.
- Trial included expert testimony on eyewitness reliability (Dr. Penrod); defendants argued misjoinder and sought severance; jury convicted both of armed robbery (Sept. 21) and unarmed robbery (Sept. 28), among other counts.
- On appeal the court concluded joinder/severance error required vacating the Sept. 28 unarmed robbery convictions (and Smith’s related receiving‑stolen‑property), but upheld Sept. 21 convictions; directed correction of OCDR enhancements and other sentencing matters.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Government/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 8(b) / severance under Rule 14 | Joinder of Sept. 21 and Sept. 28 charges prejudiced defendants; counts should be tried separately | Offenses are part of a series with overlapping proof (arrest, association) so joinder proper and severance unwarranted | Even if joinder arguable, denial of severance was an abuse: Sept. 21 evidence was not admissible to prove identity or context for Sept. 28 and was unfairly prejudicial; vacate Sept. 28 convictions and remand |
| Admissibility of Sept. 21 evidence to prove identity/context for Sept. 28 | Sept. 21 facts were necessary context/identity evidence | Similarities (presence together, roles, phone objective) support admissibility | Sept. 21 robbery too dissimilar and commonplace; not sufficiently distinctive to prove identity and not necessary context; exclusion required because prejudice outweighed probative value |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Sept. 28 robbery (Gray) | Evidence (matching description, presence at Gallery Place, association with Smith who had the phone) sufficed | Same; collective circumstantial evidence supported a reasonable jury verdict | Majority: sufficient evidence to convict Gray for Sept. 28 (but conviction vacated for severance prejudice); concurrence disagreed—insufficient and would bar retrial for Double Jeopardy purposes |
| Jury instructions / aiding and abetting knowledge requirement (Smith) | Trial court failed to instruct that an unarmed aider must have actual knowledge principal was armed | Court’s instructions on intent/possession reasonably conveyed the knowledge requirement; evidence showed Smith saw/displayed gun | No plain error; instruction adequate and evidence supported Smith’s knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (Rule 14 severance standard and prejudice balancing)
- Easton v. United States, 533 A.2d 904 (D.C. 1987) (other‑crimes evidence admissible for identity only if unusually distinctive)
- Bailey v. United States, 10 A.3d 637 (D.C. 2010) (motion to sever requires lack of mutual admissibility or risk of amalgamation)
- Settles v. United States, 522 A.2d 348 (D.C. 1987) (Rule 8(b) joinder guidance)
- Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1087 (D.C. 1996) (other‑offense evidence may be admitted to place charged crime in understandable context)
- Robinson v. United States, 100 A.3d 95 (D.C. 2014) (aider/abettor knowledge requirement discussion)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error standard)
- Wright v. United States, 926 A.2d 1151 (D.C. 2007) (possession of certain weapons demonstrates unlawful intent)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (appellate sufficiency review considers all evidence admitted at trial)
- Smith v. United States, 561 A.2d 468 (D.C. 1989) (insufficient‑evidence precedent where victim could not identify defendants and surveillance was inconclusive)