DEONTE J. BRYANT & TERRANCE M. BUSH v. UNITED STATES
148 A.3d 689
| D.C. | 2016Background
- On June 25, 2011, during a crowded Caribbean Festival in D.C., a gunfight involving Deonte Bryant (CTU), Terrance Bush (LDP/West Side), and Terry Jimenez (Hobart) resulted in three bystander injuries and the death of Robert Foster Jr.
- Jimenez pled guilty to second-degree murder and testified for the government; neither Bryant nor Bush testified at trial.
- The government introduced three surveillance videos (admitted individually) and a synchronized compilation of them, plus gang-affiliation evidence to provide context and motive for the shooting.
- A jury convicted Bryant and Bush of first-degree murder while armed and related offenses; Bryant received 726 months and Bush 738 months in prison. Both appealed.
- On appeal, defendants challenged: admission/authentication of the video compilation (Confrontation Clause), admission of gang and "other crimes" (Drew) evidence, the use of an "urban-gun-battle" theory/instruction for first-degree murder and a provocation instruction, sufficiency of evidence for premeditation (Bryant), and Bush sought severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellants) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of synchronized video compilation (Confrontation Clause) | Admission without creator’s testimony violated Confrontation Clause and was prejudicial | Videos were authenticated by a witness at the scene; compilation was demonstrative and cumulative | No plain error; admission harmless where originals were admitted and testimony corroborated accuracy |
| Admission of gang-affiliation and "other crimes" (Drew) evidence | Gang/other-crimes evidence was unfairly prejudicial and showed impermissible propensity | Evidence was relevant to motive, context, and urban-gun-battle theory; limiting instruction given | Gang affiliation evidence admissible for context/motive; "other crimes" references were unnecessary but harmless because limited and not relied upon |
| Use of urban-gun-battle theory/instruction for first-degree murder | Theory properly applies only to second-degree murder; cannot convict for first-degree without proving who fired fatal shot | Theory can supply proximate-cause liability; jury still required to find premeditation and deliberation | Instruction permissible as a theory of causation for first-degree murder where government proved premeditation/deliberation and no self-defense |
| Provocation instruction (effect on self-defense) | Trial court erred in instructing provocation rule (forfeiture of self-defense) | Sufficient evidence of aggressive/provocative conduct (mean-mugging, pump-faking, presence in rival neighborhood) justified instruction | No plain error: provocation evidence sufficient; defendants’ conduct could forfeit self-defense rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2006) (plain-error review framework for forfeited trial objections)
- Roy v. United States, 871 A.2d 498 (D.C. 2005) (recognizing urban-gun-battle theory for proximate-cause murder liability)
- McCray v. United States, 133 A.3d 205 (D.C. 2016) (discussion of causation and intent in gun-battle contexts)
- Campos-Alvarez v. United States, 16 A.3d 954 (D.C. 2011) (trial judge must balance probative value and prejudice when admitting gang evidence)
- Plummer v. United States, 813 A.2d 182 (D.C. 2002) (gang affiliation evidence admissible if relevant, necessary, and supported by competent evidence)