Damian J. Smith v. United States
2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 275
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Damian Smith was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute MDPV ("bath salts") after officers found a bag of pills in a pair of men’s shorts taken from a bedroom during his arrest.
- Officer Artinian handed the shorts to Smith at the scene; Smith denied ownership. A photograph of Smith wearing the shorts at the scene was admitted at trial.
- The shorts were turned over to D.C. Jail and later destroyed under jail property procedures; the government conceded it failed to preserve the shorts as required by Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16.
- The trial court found government negligence (not bad faith), imposed three Rule 16 sanctions (precluding prosecution from arguing the shorts fit, eliciting police opinion that they fit, and objecting to Smith’s out-of-court denial), but allowed the photograph.
- Smith appealed, arguing (1) inadequate sanctions for the government’s failure to preserve the shorts (and that the photo should have been suppressed) and (2) insufficient evidence to prove identity of the substance and intent to distribute.
- The court affirmed: it found the trial court erred in understating government culpability and in assigning partial fault to Smith, but those errors were harmless because the sanctions adequately mitigated prejudice; it also upheld sufficiency of the evidence on identity and intent.
Issues
| Issue | Smith’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 16 sanctions for destruction of shorts | Shorts were deliberately or grossly destroyed; photograph should be suppressed as essential evidence | Loss was negligent; photograph admissible; trial court’s sanctions cured prejudice | Court: Government acted with at least gross negligence; trial court erred in minimizing culpability and assigning partial fault to Smith, but sanctions were sufficient and error was harmless — affirmed. |
| Assignment of partial blame to defendant for loss of evidence | Smith lacked opportunity/notice to preserve shorts; cannot be faulted | Government explained jail policy; suggested some defense opportunity | Court: Court erred to assign fault to Smith; government is responsible for preserving Rule 16 material. |
| Sufficiency of proof that pills were MDPV (identity and measurable amount) | One laboratory pill tested — insufficient sampling to prove all pills were MDPV | DEA test of one pill, field test of another, and uniform appearance supported identity | Court: Admitted evidence (lab + field tests and uniform appearance) was sufficient for jury to find measurable amount and identity — upheld. |
| Sufficiency of proof of intent to distribute | Detective’s 95% opinion and quantity-based testimony were "junk science" and insufficient | Expert testimony on packaging, quantity, value, and customary personal-use amounts supported intent to distribute | Court: Absent trial objection, detective’s expert testimony and quantity/value evidence allowed a reasonable jury to find intent beyond a reasonable doubt — upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koonce v. District of Columbia, 111 A.3d 1009 (D.C. 2015) (three-factor test for Rule 16 sanctions: culpability, importance of evidence lost, evidence of guilt)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless error standard requiring high probability that error did not affect verdict)
- Williams v. United States, 77 A.3d 425 (D.C. 2013) (sanction decisions for Rule 16 violations committed to trial court discretion)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due process violation for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence requires bad faith)
- Digsby v. United States, 981 A.2d 598 (D.C. 2009) (sampling/laboratory proof: possession-with-intent requires measurable, quantifiable amount)
- Day v. United States, 697 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1997) (discussing sanctions and when dismissal is appropriate for failure to preserve evidence)