Background

• Barry Harrison was convicted after a jury trial of enticing a child with aggravating circumstances, three counts of second-degree child sexual abuse with aggravating circumstances, and one count of misdemeanor sexual abuse of a child with aggravating circumstances for offenses against T.G., a tenth-grade student at Spingarn High School.
• The government sought to admit testimony from three other female students about sexually suggestive comments Harrison made to them prior to the alleged assault to prove motive.
• The trial court ruled the comments admissible for intent, motive, absence of mistake or accident, and peculiar sexual preference, and instructed the jury on the limited purpose of the evidence.
• During trial, the government argued the testimony showed motive and opportunity; the defense contended it was improper propensity evidence.
• The jury received a limiting instruction, but the court did not give a jury instruction clearly delimiting the use of the other-witness testimony to avoid improper propensity reasoning.
• The DC Court of Appeals held the admission of the other-witness evidence was an abuse of discretion and reversed Harrison’s convictions, remanding for a new trial.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1087 (D.C. 1996) (propensity evidence rule and motive exception)
• Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (propensity and admissibility of prior acts)
• Goines v. United States, 905 A.2d 795 (D.C. 2006) (probative value vs. prejudicial impact in similar context)
• Bacchus v. United States, 970 A.2d 269 (D.C. 2009) (admissibility of prior similar acts for motive)
• Hill v. United States, 600 A.2d 58 (D.C. 1991) (limits on use of prior acts to show motive)
• McLean v. United States, 377 A.2d 74 (D.C. 1977) (propensity and character evidence restrictions)