114 A.3d 608
D.C.2015Background
- Terry and Robin were convicted of four counts of aggravated assault while armed and Terry additionally of four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence arising from a May 19, 2009 shooting on North Capitol Street in NW DC.
- Victims Jameeka Washington, Kwame Wingard, Clipper, and Williams were shot; Clipper and Williams injuries were central to later challenges about serious bodily injury.
- DNA on ski masks and hats found in a van connected Terry and Robin; Banks also linked by DNA to another item; gun used in the shooting was not recovered.
- A witness, Daniels, testified about inculpatory statements Terry allegedly made after the shooting; the defense impeached Daniels with a prior cooperation agreement and prior assaults.
- The government’s Brady disclosures were later found to include exculpatory/impeaching material that had not been disclosed promptly; trial court ruled no Brady violation despite late disclosure.
- On appeal, the court held certain AAWA convictions (Clipper and Williams) lacked sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury and remanded to vacate those and convict for Assault with Significant Bodily Injury; two PFCV counts against Terry were also remanded for vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Robin as aider and abettor | Robin aided and abetted from the van setup and flight; evidence shows intent to facilitate the crime. | Insufficient evidence of mens rea to cause serious bodily injury; lack of proof of joint intent. | Sufficient evidence supported aiding and abetting conviction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of serious bodily injury for Clipper and Williams | Clippers and Williams sustained injuries meeting the 'serious bodily injury' threshold. | Record lacked evidence of the level of pain or impairment to prove serious bodily injury. | Clippers and Williams convictions vacated; entered for Assault with Significant Bodily Injury instead. |
| Brady disclosure and prejudice | Late disclosure of Detective Murphy’s notes was prejudicial and suppressed Brady material. | Disclosures were insufficiently helpful to change trial strategy; no prejudice to defense. | No Brady violation; outcome would not have differed. |
| Admission of Daniels’ and Gray’s testimony about other misconduct and impeachment | Evidentiary rulings on cross/redirect and use of prior acts were probative and not unfairly prejudicial. | Rulings allowed improper bolstering and prejudicial impeachment, especially regarding prior murder allegations. | Trial court’s evidentiary rulings affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Admission of Terry’s out-of-court statements against Robin under Laumer test | Daniels’ testimony about Terry’s statements should be admitted as against penal interest. | Lack of corroboration and misalignment with Laumer factors; improper admission. | Statements admitted; corroboration satisfied; admissible under Laumer/decl. against penal interest. |
| PFCV merger | All four PFCV counts reflect separate acts; no merger. | There should be merger where acts resulted from one continued violence with same weapon. | Two of Terry’s PFCV convictions vacated on remand; at most two distinct PFCV acts established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. United States, 36 A.3d 799 (D.C. 2011) (defines mens rea for aiding and abetting in AAWA cases)
- Jackson v. United States, 970 A.2d 277 (D.C. 2009) (serious bodily injury threshold definition)
- Bolanos v. United States, 938 A.2d 672 (D.C. 2007) (high threshold of injury for serious bodily injury)
- Swinton v. United States, 902 A.2d 772 (D.C. 2006) (illustrates high threshold for serious bodily injury)
- Jenkins v. United States, 877 A.2d 1062 (D.C. 2005) (examples of serious bodily injury evidence sufficiency)
- Carter v. United States, 957 A.2d 9 (D.C. 2008) (evidence supporting aiding and abetting in complex scenarios)
- Mackabee v. United States, 29 A.3d 952 (D.C. 2011) ( Brady material prejudice standard in DC appeals)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality of suppressed evidence standard)
- Laumer v. United States, 409 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1979) (test for declaration against penal interest admissibility)
- (Keith) Thomas v. United States, 978 A.2d 1225 (D.C. 2009) (uses Laumer test for penal-interest declarations)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimonial vs non-testimonial statements analysis)