Andre Holmon v. District of Columbia
202 A.3d 512
| D.C. | 2019Background
- Appellant was subject to a civil protection order (CPO) prohibiting any contact with Ms. Erie Hollonquest, including telephone contact, and to stay 100 feet away from her and certain locations.
- On November 15, 2014, while the CPO was in effect, Hollonquest observed appellant enter her building, approach her, and threaten her; she called 911.
- Hollonquest also saw several missed calls on her cellphone that displayed a number she recognized as appellant’s; she did not answer because she knew who was calling. Her phone was later stolen and not available at trial.
- Two MPD officers testified: Officer Davis recorded the displayed missed-call number in contemporaneous notes; Officer Daly also recorded the same number after speaking with appellant, who identified that number as his.
- Appellant testified that Hollonquest had called him first asking for money, that she promised not to call the police, and that he later went to give her money; he contested the telephone-contact charge.
- The trial court convicted appellant of criminal contempt for (1) coming within 100 feet of Hollonquest and (2) contacting her by telephone; appellant appealed only the phone-contact conviction, challenging admissibility and sufficiency of the missed-call evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility: whether Officer Davis’s testimony about the missed-call number was hearsay | The phone’s missed-call display is machine-generated data, not an out-of-court human statement; admission was proper | The missed-call entry is hearsay because it implies an out-of-court assertion (the caller identity) and could be programmed or altered | Admitted: court held the missed-call display is non-hearsay because it is machine-generated raw data with no human declarant to cross-examine |
| Reliability of caller-ID / missed-call display | System is reliable; witness testimony corroborated the number and identity | Caller-ID/missed-call could be erroneous (carrier error, manual entry) or calls could be accidental (pocket dials) | No plain error: defense did not make a focused trial reliability objection; record evidence supported reliability so admission was not obviously erroneous |
| Sufficiency: whether missed calls (unanswered) constitute prohibited "contact" under the CPO | Missed/unanswered calls that the petitioner recognized as from the respondent constitute contact; additional facts (appellant later appeared at building; prior answered call) support willfulness | Missed calls alone, without proof of time, voluntariness, or an answered conversation, do not prove willful contact beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed: evidence (missed calls displayed that day, petitioner’s testimony she declined to answer, appellant’s later presence, appellant’s own testimony) sufficient to prove willful contact in violation of the CPO |
| Standard for interpreting machine-generated evidence vs. human-dependent outputs | Distinguish purely automated records (non-hearsay) from machine outputs that rest on human judgments (may imply hearsay) | Machine records here still reflect human design and thus should be treated as hearsay requiring confrontation/verification | Adopted distinction: machine-produced identification that does not depend on human inputs or case-specific human judgment is non-hearsay; Young-type human-dependent lab processes differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. United States, 613 A.2d 880 (D.C. 1992) (definition of hearsay and statement for hearsay purposes)
- Young v. United States, 63 A.3d 1036 (D.C. 2013) (machine-generated outputs that depend on human inputs may imply hearsay)
- People v. Holowko, 486 N.E.2d 877 (Ill. 1985) (caller-ID/display of originating number is generated by telecom switching systems)
- In re Shirley, 28 A.3d 506 (D.C. 2011) (consent by petitioner does not necessarily negate willful violation of a CPO)
- In re Sobin, 934 A.2d 372 (D.C. 2007) (attempted or indirect communications can violate no-contact provisions)
- State v. McGee, 84 P.3d 690 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (unanswered calls can violate a protection order’s no-contact provision)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review standard)