Charles E. Mobley, Dante Carpenter, Gerald A. Thompkins v. United States
101 A.3d 406
| D.C. | 2014Background
- Around 3:00 a.m. on Nov. 24, 2007, multiple gunshots were fired outside Club Envy; officers Geddies, Evely, Sulla, and Bishop were positioned in marked cars near the club and were among the persons fired upon. Witnesses estimated ~20–30 shots fired from a black Dodge Charger.
- Officers Evely and Geddies identified Charles Mobley, Dante Carpenter, and Gerald Thompkins as shooters; two defendants were wounded during the flight to the Edgewood apartments.
- A security officer (Bartlett) recovered an automatic handgun thrown into brush near Edgewood; recorded jail calls and witness identifications tied defendants to the flight and the gun.
- At trial appellants were convicted of multiple counts including ADW (assault with a dangerous weapon), APOWA (assault on a police officer while armed), CPWL, and PFCV; some counts and post-trial claims (juror nondisclosure) were litigated.
- On appeal the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing: it rejected a severance claim, resolved multiple merger issues, affirmed most convictions (including attempted tampering and CPWL), vacated some obstruction convictions, and denied a new-trial juror-bias claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance (Mobley) — admission of Carpenter’s jail statement recounted by Sinclair using plural pronouns | Mobley: Carpenter’s “they” statements improperly implicated Mobley; limiting instructions insufficient under Bruton/Carpenter; severance or redaction required | Gov: statements were non-testimonial, neutral plural pronoun did not on its face implicate Mobley; limiting instruction and context (cell conversation) cured any risk | Denied — no manifest prejudice. Neutral plural pronoun and timely limiting instructions meant no Bruton/Carpenter violation; trial court didn’t abuse discretion. |
| Merger of ADW/APOWA and PFCV counts (Mobley & Carpenter) | Defs: certain ADW convictions (re: Officers Bishop and Sulla) should merge or be dismissed because insufficient proof they knew officers were present | Gov: officers’ vehicles clustered and illuminated; shots hit police cars; jury could infer defendants knew risk to officers; conceded some mergers (Geddies/Evely ADW with APOWA; consolidate PFCV counts) | Mixed — court accepted gov’t concessions (ADW re: Geddies & Evely merge with APOWA; PFCV counts merge into one) but rejected defendants’ broader merger claims; evidence supported separate ADW convictions for Bishop and Sulla. |
| APOWA instruction (Thompkins): felony element omitted from jury charge | Thompkins: court omitted “significant bodily injury / grave risk” element distinguishing felony APOWA from misdemeanor, violating Apprendi/Alleyne and due process | Gov: failure to object at trial; evidence (20–30 shots at officers) shows jury necessarily found grave risk; error harmless under Neder/plain-error standard | Rejected — not reversible. Instructional omission was error but harmless under plain-error review given overwhelming evidence; felony APOWA convictions stand. |
| Tampering & Obstruction (Thompkins & Carpenter) and juror-bias/new-trial claims | Thompkins: attempted tampering conviction insufficient (lack of corroboration and no dangerous proximity); defendants: juror nondisclosure required new trial; obstruction convictions challenged | Gov: recorded calls, Bartlett’s testimony, chase and tossing of gun corroborate efforts to locate/conceal gun; juror’s nondisclosure found non-deliberate by trial judge; gov’t concedes obstruction convictions insufficient under Wynn | Mixed — attempted tampering and CPWL convictions affirmed (sufficient corroboration and substantial step/dangerous-proximity met); obstruction convictions for Thompkins and Carpenter vacated; new-trial motion based on juror misconduct denied (no clear abuse of discretion). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (rule that a defendant’s extrajudicial confession that incriminates a co-defendant may require redaction or severance)
- Carpenter v. United States, 430 A.2d 496 (D.C. 1981) (joinder and treatment of co-defendant confessions under hearsay rules)
- Thomas v. United States, 978 A.2d 1211 (D.C. 2009) (plural pronouns and admissibility of neutral non-identifying statements)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (elements increasing maximum penalty must be submitted to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Sixth Amendment requires jury find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (instructional omissions assessed under harmless-error framework)
- Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (confession corroboration requirement)
- Wynn v. United States, 48 A.3d 181 (D.C. 2012) (statutory requirement for obstruction—"official proceeding" element)
- Nixon v. United States, 730 A.2d 145 (D.C. 1999) (merger/sequence principles for multiple weapon-possession convictions)
- Graure v. United States, 18 A.3d 743 (D.C. 2011) (when multiple assault convictions merge versus stand separately)
- Roy v. United States, 871 A.2d 498 (D.C. 2005) (double jeopardy/merger standard)