Cedrick Lorenzo Shuler v. United States
2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 316
| D.C. | 2014Background
- In 1998 Cedrick Shuler shot and killed Renee Best; he was indicted in 2011 for first-degree murder while armed and tried in 2012.
- Prosecution relied largely on eyewitness testimony from Alvin Barnes and Ricky Black; defense argued Shuler was not at the scene and attacked witness credibility.
- At trial the court instructed the jury on first-degree murder (including transferred intent); neither party requested a second-degree murder instruction before closing.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether it could consider a lesser offense; the court, with the government‘s agreement and over defense objection, gave a second-degree murder while armed instruction as a lesser included offense.
- The jury later asked about transferred intent and whether it could consider second-degree before resolving first-degree; the court reinstructed on premeditation, transferred intent, and the requirement to acquit on first-degree before considering second-degree.
- The jury convicted Shuler of second-degree murder while armed; Shuler appealed, arguing prejudice from the post‑summation lesser‑included instruction and from the reinstruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by giving a second‑degree lesser‑included instruction during deliberations (not requested pre‑closing) | Shuler: late instruction prejudiced his strategy and denied opportunity to address the charge in summation | Government: the jury asked; court may give such instruction when warranted and government agreed | No error — court may give a lesser included instruction in response to a jury question if no unfair prejudice resulted |
| Whether the timing/initiative of the instruction was unduly suggestive | Shuler: instruction given post‑summation could be seen as court endorsement to resolve a stalled jury | Government: the jury raised the issue early; instruction answered juror question and reiterated first‑degree requirement | No error — jury initiated the question early; court emphasized first‑degree first and avoided endorsement |
| Whether the late instruction deprived Shuler of effective summation or caused strategic harm | Shuler: would have argued differently if he expected a lesser‑included instruction | Government: defense theory (not being at scene) addressed both charges; no strategic reliance on all‑or‑nothing approach | No error — record shows defense theory attacked witness ID and applied equally to second‑degree; no real prejudice shown |
| Whether reinstruction on premeditation, transferred intent, and the sequence requirement was improper | Shuler: reinstruction steered jury and court should have balanced with reasonable doubt/credibility reminders | Government: jurors were confused; court must cure confusion and answer the specific questions | No error — court properly dispelled confusion with neutral, narrowly tailored reinstruction and declined unrelated instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Blocker v. United States, 940 A.2d 1042 (D.C. 2008) (trial judge has discretion on jury instructions; review for abuse of discretion)
- Yelverton v. United States, 904 A.2d 383 (D.C. 2006) (supplemental instructions to deliberating jury must be viewed cautiously)
- Welbeck, 145 F.3d 493 (2d Cir. 1998) (upholding post‑summation lesser‑included instruction where jury initiated query and no unfair prejudice)
- Jennings v. United States, 993 A.2d 1077 (D.C. 2010) (standards for when lesser‑included instruction is proper)
- Hawthorne v. United States, 829 A.2d 948 (D.C. 2003) (trial court may give lesser‑included instruction sua sponte or when a party affirmatively agrees)
- Jordan v. United States, 18 A.3d 703 (D.C. 2011) (trial court must cure jury confusion about applicable law)