Haye v. United States
67 A.3d 1025
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Haye was convicted of unlawful entry and criminal contempt for returning to Garfield Terrace (2301 11th Street, NW) after being barred, with two separate incidents in September 2010.
- A Housing Authority barring notice followed Haye's December 2009 drug arrest, and a housing officer orally explained the bar’s boundaries and five-year duration.
- The stay-away order issued by the court accompanied Haye’s pretrial release conditions, prohibiting entry to the Garfield Terrace premises.
- On September 17, 2010, Haye allegedly entered 2301 11th Street, leading to one unlawful-entry conviction; on September 22, 2010, he allegedly entered again, resulting in a second unlawful-entry conviction and a contempt conviction.
- Dorothy Glenn, the Garfield Terrace property manager, testified she recognized Haye from prior bars and observed him entering the building on September 22.
- The trial court sentenced Haye after finding that the barring notice was orally communicated and that Haye returned to the premises after being barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy—are unlawful entry and contempt the same offense here? | Haye argues they are the same offense under Blockburger because one acts replicate the release-order violation. | The government argues Blockburger should consider the specific order provisions; contempt targets the order, unlawful entry targets entry. | Plain error; convictions punished the same offense; remand to vacate one conviction. |
| Sufficiency of notice for unlawful entry | Notice was not proven in writing; only oral notice was given. | Officer Douglass orally explained the bar and its boundaries; written notice not required. | Evidence supports unlawful-entry convictions based on oral notice. |
| Admissibility of prior-bar testimony (Johnson evidence) | Testimony about prior bars is prejudicial and improper character evidence. | Testimony contextualizes recognition and events; not prejudicial in bench trial. | Admission permissible to contextualize events; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. United States, 28 A.3d 514 (D.C. 2011) (applies context-specific Blockburger analysis to conditional-release vs. substantive offenses)
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (Blockburger same-elements test;Contempt vs. underlying offense; order content matters)
- Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1097 (D.C. 1996) (admissibility of other-acts evidence under Johnson for context and identification)