Ball v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 510
D.C.2011Background
- Ball and Jackson were indicted on numerous charges stemming from a high-speed chase and foot pursuit of suspects after a Buick pursuit.
- Ball faced more serious firearm-related charges (ADW, felony APO, two PFCV counts, firearm/ammunition possession) than Jackson, who was unarmed (fleeing, misdemeanor APO, reckless driving).
- During the incident, Ball allegedly pointed a loaded Ruger at Officer Gomez while fleeing, and Gomez fired; a jam allegedly occurred but the gun could have fired if not jammed.
- A Ruger 9mm with 19 rounds and later matching ammunition found at Ball’s home were introduced as evidence; the gun was recovered jammed but operable according to expert testimony.
- The trial court admitted evidence of overlapping acts as part of a single, logistically connected sequence of events occurring within minutes of the chase.
- Ball and Jackson were tried together and convicted on all counts; Ball challenges merger and sufficiency issues, while Jackson challenges misjoinder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is joinder of Ball and Jackson proper? | Jackson argues misjoinder should not permit joint trial. | Ball did not challenge joinder; joinder was appropriate. | Joinder properly permitted; convictions affirmed for Jackson; Ball’s case remanded for merger adjustments. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Ball's felony APO | Ball argues gun jam negates grave risk of significant bodily injury. | Ball points to jam to negate risk; argued not proven as felony APO. | Evidence supported felony APO; pointing a loaded gun at an officer created grave risk, even if jam occurred later. |
| Do ADW and felony APO merge with Ball’s conviction? | Government concedes ADW should merge with felony APO; separate PFCV counts addressed. | Ball argues overlapping predicate offenses should merge and reduce convictions. | ADW merges into felony APO; one PFCV conviction vacated; remand for merger-consistent proceedings. |
| Do felony APO and PFCV merge (Blockburger analysis)? | The two offenses are distinct and do not merge. | Overlap would reduce holdings if they were the same act. | Felony APO and PFCV do not merge; each requires proof of a fact the other does not. |
| Prosecutor's closing comments—plain error? | Prosecutor alleged facts or inferred guilt beyond evidence. | No objection at trial; plain error standard should apply. | No plain error; remarks were reasonable inferences from evidence and did not deny fairness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. United States, 551 A.2d 96 (D.C.1988) (joinder upheld when offenses are logically related as a series)
- Sams v. United States, 721 A.2d 945 (D.C.1998) (strong policy favoring joinder when offenses are sequels)
- Bush v. United States, 516 A.2d 186 (D.C.1986) (joinder if offenses constitute a series of acts)
- Davis v. United States, 367 A.2d 1254 (D.C.1976) (logically connected offenses may justify joinder)
- Jackson v. United States, 623 A.2d 571 (D.C.1993) (misjoinder reviewed de novo when offenses logically related)
- United States v. Easter, 553 F.3d 519 (7th Cir.2009) (reaching for a loaded gun creates grave risk of injury)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (whether offenses require proof of different facts; non-merge under Blockburger)
- In re J.S., 19 A.3d 328 (D.C.2011) (requires proof of element not shared by other offense)
- McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16 (1986) (gun is inherently dangerous; relevant in risk assessments)