Howard v. United States, 241 A.3d 554

Police stopped a Toyota Corolla for failing to stop; officers observed the front-passenger (Howard) lean as the car was approached and discovered a Glock 17 under the passenger seat with a 17‑round magazine.
A black backpack found in the trunk contained an additional 17‑round Glock magazine, a job application bearing Howard’s name, clothing items, and various small objects; officers preserved the backpack, clothing, job application, and photographed other contents but left some small items in the trunk when the car was released to the defendant’s brother.
Howard was tried and convicted on multiple firearms-related counts and moved for dismissal and, alternatively, a missing-evidence jury instruction based on the unpreserved backpack contents; the trial court denied both requests.
Defense also sought to impeach Officer Mark Minzak with a pending Office of Police Complaints (OPC) investigation alleging excessive force and related misconduct; the trial court issued a protective order limiting contact with the complainant and restricted certain extrinsic inquiry into the OPC matter while allowing core bias questioning.
At trial defense elicited on cross-examination the existence, subject matter, and potential consequences of the OPC investigation and argued bias in closing; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, rejecting claims that the missing-evidence instruction or limits on cross-examination violated Rule 16 or the Sixth Amendment.

Issue	Howard's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a missing-evidence instruction for unpreserved items from the backpack	The unpreserved backpack contents were material and their loss required a missing-evidence instruction as a sanction under Rule 16	Officers reasonably declined to preserve peripheral/trash items, photographed contents, left items with defendant’s brother, and other preserved evidence tied Howard to the gun	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; no bad faith, unpreserved items were speculative/insignificant, and other evidence negated need for the instruction
Whether limiting cross-examination about the OPC complaint against Officer Minzak violated the Sixth Amendment	Restrictions prevented fully exposing Minzak’s motive to curry favor and required extrinsic proof (medical records, photos, witness statements) to show gravity of investigation and bias	Court permitted core bias inquiry; protective order protected complainant and avoided a trial-within-a-trial; defense could argue bias in closing	Affirmed — constitutional requirements met; sufficient facts elicited to argue bias and limits were reasonable to prevent prejudice and mini‑trial

Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296 (D.C. 2018) (Rule 16 preservation and disclosure principles)
Tann v. United States, 127 A.3d 400 (D.C. 2015) (factors for sanctions when evidence is not preserved)
Robinson v. United States, 825 A.2d 318 (D.C. 2003) (police possession = government custody/control for discovery)
Buchanan v. United States, 165 A.3d 297 (D.C. 2017) (materiality standard for discovery under Rule 16)
Tyer v. United States, 912 A.2d 1150 (D.C. 2006) (standards and dangers for missing-evidence jury instructions)
Thomas v. United States, 447 A.2d 52 (D.C. 1982) (risk of creating evidence from non-evidence with adverse-inference instructions)
Smith v. United States, 169 A.3d 887 (D.C. 2017) (failure to preserve singularly probative physical evidence can be gross negligence)
Koonce v. District of Columbia, 111 A.3d 1009 (D.C. 2015) (defer to trial court findings about government bad faith absent clear error)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (limits on cross-examination do not automatically violate Sixth Amendment unless they prohibit all inquiry into bias)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (cross-examination to expose motive to curry favor is constitutionally important)
Longus v. United States, 52 A.3d 836 (D.C. 2012) (permissible scope of bias inquiry and limits to avoid trial-within-a-trial)
Lewis v. United States, 10 A.3d 646 (D.C. 2010) (review standards where trial judge limits cross-examination for bias)