Donell R. Washington v. United States, 111 A.3d 16

Appellant Donell R. Washington challenges his convictions for first-degree murder while armed and related offenses in the District of Columbia.
Victim Stanley Dawson was killed July 8, 2010 at a Southeast DC playground after Washington fired at Dawson and others.
Witnesses described a shooter in black clothing with a bandana; multiple victims were shot; police recovered ten .40-caliber casings from the scene.
DNA swabs were collected from a fence but were lost while in MPD custody, and no DNA was proven to be linked to any specific individual.
Washington moved to dismiss the indictment and sought a missing evidence instruction; the court denied the instruction.
The court ultimately affirmed Washington’s convictions, including three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, one count of carrying a pistol without a license, and four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a missing evidence instruction.	Washington argues the loss of DNA swabs warrants an adverse-inference instruction.	Washington contends the missing-evidence instruction was proper to sanction government negligence.	No abuse; the court acted within substantial discretion and the instruction was not required.
Whether the concurrent‑intent instruction for AWIKWA was adequate and properly clarified.	Washington asserts the instruction was legally inadequate and confusing to jurors.	Washington contends the instruction, with clarifying language, correctly stated the law.	The instruction was adequate and the clarification remedied any confusion; no error.

Evans v. United States, 12 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2011) (discretion in imposing sanctions for discovery violations)
Tyer v. United States, 912 A.2d 1150 (D.C. 2006) (trial court broad discretion in sanctions; missing evidence instruction requires caution)
Robinson v. United States, 825 A.2d 318 (D.C. 2003) (negligent loss of evidence; sanctions not automatic)
Medley v. United States, 104 A.3d 115 (D.C. 2014) (sanctions discretionary; missing evidence instruction not automatic error)
Thomas v. United States, 447 A.2d 52 (D.C. 1982) (trial court discretion; missing evidence sanction relevance)
Simmons v. United States, 444 A.2d 962 (D.C. 1982) (limits on sanctions for evidentiary issues)
Gray v. United States, 79 A.3d 326 (D.C. 2013) (clarification of jury instructions to resolve confusion)
Walls v. United States, 773 A.2d 424 (D.C. 2001) (concurrent intent doctrine; imputing intent to multiple victims)
DiGiovanni v. United States, 810 A.2d 887 (D.C. 2002) (concurrent intent principle in multi-victim shooting)
Ruffin v. United States, 642 A.2d 1298 (D.C. 1994) (zone of danger theory in concurrent intent)