Evans v. United States
12 A.3d 1
D.C.2011Background
- Evans was convicted of aggravated assault while armed (AAWA) after a bench trial before Judge Dixon.
- The defense argued prosecutorial opening misstatement about a non-produced exculpatory statement created prejudice.
- Two police statements by Evans exist: an initial at home claiming he was jumped, and a subsequent at the station admitting stabbing Boyd in self-defense.
- The government sought to admit the first statement under rule of completeness but later elected not to introduce it, impacting the defense's theory.
- Defense sought mistrial or a curative instruction; the trial court denied both, and closing arguments did not reference the earlier statements.
- On appeal, Evans contends the prosecutorial misstatement and the government's change in strategy undermined a fair trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did opening misstatement require mistrial? | Evans | Evans | No reversible error; no substantial prejudice. |
| Was defense reliance on opening statements reasonable? | Evans | Evans | Defense reliance was reasonable; error harmless. |
| Should a curative or missing-evidence instruction have been given? | Evans | Evans | Not required; discretion lies with trial court; error harmless. |
| Did the prosecutor's trial strategy change warrant relief? | Evans | Evans | No reversible error; strategy shift did not prejudice defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Najafi v. United States, 886 A.2d 103 (D.C. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for mistrial; substantial prejudice required)
- Owens v. United States, 497 A.2d 1086 (D.C. 1985) (opening statements not automatically reversible; caution with evidence)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1969) (opening misstatements sandwiched with evidence; limited prejudice)
- Ginyard v. United States, 816 A.2d 21 (D.C. 2003) (jurors presumed to follow cautions that opening statements are not evidence)
- Wilson v. United States, 606 A.2d 1017 (D.C. 1992) (reliance on pre-trial representations; remedy limitations in trial context)
- Dobson v. United States, 711 A.2d 78 (D.C. 1998) (reliance on opening statements; missing-evidence-like remedies considered)
- Johns v. United States, 434 A.2d 463 (D.C. 1981) (rule of completeness; continuous statements; admissions)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless-error framework for evaluating trial prejudices)
- Rorie v. United States, 882 A.2d 763 (D.C. 2005) (evidence weighed against self-defense theory; government burden to disprove)
- Bailey v. United States, 831 A.2d 973 (D.C. 2003) (counsel's statements not evidence; cautions to jury)
- Salmon v. United States, 719 A.2d 949 (D.C. 1997) (mistrial as drastic remedy; circumstances require necessity)
- Anthony v. United States, 935 A.2d 275 (D.C. 2007) (prosecutor's opening statements; reliance and prejudice considerations)
- Andrews v. United States, 922 A.2d 449 (D.C. 2007) (rule-of-completeness and admission of statements)