In re L.C.
2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 165
D.C.2014Background
- Victim Adrienne Kinney was accosted in an alley; assailants wore open-faced ski masks; victim described one assailant as wearing a light-blue jacket with white stripe(s).
- Police stopped L.C. and another man within minutes ~200 feet from scene; L.C. wore a light-blue jacket with white stripes and had an open-faced ski mask in his pocket.
- The police conducted a near-contemporaneous show-up; Kinney identified L.C. at the scene and made an in-court identification at trial.
- Defense proffered Dr. Steven Penrod to testify about psychological research bearing on eyewitness reliability (clothing bias, stress effects, low confidence-accuracy correlation, suggestiveness of show-ups).
- Trial court excluded Dr. Penrod’s testimony without a Dyas-style voir dire, ruling the proffered topics were within "common sense;" the judge then credited the identification and convicted L.C.
- On appeal the court held the exclusion was erroneous for lack of the required particularized inquiry under Dyas and Benn II, and that the error was not harmless given the centrality of the identification; judgment vacated and case remanded for a Dyas hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness reliability | Proffered psychological research is beyond ken of layperson and meets Dyas criteria; expert should testify | Trial court: issues are common sense; expert unnecessary | Court: Trial court erred by excluding without conducting Dyas inquiry; remand required |
| Standard for "ken" in bench trials | Benn/Russell: apply average layperson standard, not judge's personal expertise | Trial court applied judge-as-typical- factfinder standard | Court: Average layperson standard controls even in bench trials |
| Whether corroborative evidence justified exclusion or renders error harmless | Government: corroborating facts (proximity/time, jacket, mask) show reliability so exclusion harmless | Defense: corroboration is insufficient to negate need for expert and exclusion prejudicial | Court: Corroboration is irrelevant to admissibility inquiry; government failed to prove exclusion harmless; remand required |
| Scope of appellate review when trial court gives reasons different from those accepted on appeal | Government: appellate court may affirm on alternative grounds like corroboration | Defense: trial court relied on wrong ground so remand necessary | Court: Cannot affirm discretionary ruling on a ground trial court did not rely on; must remand for proper Dyas analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C. 1977) (three-part test for admissibility of expert opinion testimony)
- Benn v. United States (Benn II), 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C. 2009) (psychological research on eyewitness ID often beyond ken of lay jurors; requires particularized Dyas inquiry)
- Russell v. United States, 17 A.3d 581 (D.C. 2011) (exclusion of eyewitness expert testimony required remand; corroboration did not make exclusion harmless)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (trial court may not exclude defendant's evidence by assessing only prosecution’s evidence strength; right to present meaningful defense)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error standard: conviction must be highly probable despite error)