JAMARR MEDLEY ANTOINE RICHARDSON and LUCIOUS MCLEOD v. UNITED STATES
104 A.3d 115
| D.C. | 2014Background
- Three appellants (Richardson, Medley, McLeod) were tried jointly after two separate assaults on the same victim a year apart: Richardson and Medley were charged for a November 10, 2009 assault; McLeod for a November 1, 2010 stabbing.
- Evidence tied the two events: jail calls from Richardson asking McLeod to “get on top of” the situation, post‑incident approaches to the victim by Medley and McLeod attempting to dissuade testimony, and testimony linking McLeod’s 2010 attack to an effort to silence the victim.
- At the 2009 incident the victim suffered multiple stab wounds and head trauma, received staples/sutures and inpatient treatment, and later continued to report pain and functional limitations.
- Trial court joined the two events under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 8(b) (same series of acts or transactions) and denied severance motions under Rule 14.
- The court admitted redacted jail calls from Richardson and allowed evidence of an earlier assault by Richardson on a man nicknamed “Black” to show motive; the court refused a missing‑evidence instruction and denied certain jury instructions requested by Richardson.
- Appellants were convicted on various counts (ADW, AAWA, ASBI, AWIKWA, obstruction). On appeal the court affirmed convictions but remanded to vacate convictions that merged with AAWA counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder under Rule 8(b) / Severance under Rule 14 | Govt: the 2009 and 2010 assaults were part of the same series; joinder proper for efficiency and because 2010 attack aimed to obstruct testimony. | Richardson/Medley/McLeod: joinder caused manifest prejudice, conflated evidence, and implicated defendants in each other’s conduct. | Joinder under Rule 8(b) was proper; severance denied—no showing of the "most compelling prejudice." |
| Admission of Richardson’s jail calls (redaction) | Govt: calls admissible as verbal acts/state of mind (consciousness of guilt), not hearsay; redactions already made. | Medley/McLeod: calls should have been further redacted to remove references implicating co‑defendants. | Calls admissible; not hearsay; redactions sufficient; limiting instruction minimized prejudice. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for "serious bodily injury" (AAWA element) | Appellants: 2009 injuries did not rise to "serious bodily injury." | Govt: multiple stab wounds, head injury, hospital stay, prescription opioids, protracted pain and impairment suffice. | Evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find "serious bodily injury." |
| Admission of prior assault on "Black" (Drew/Drew‑type evidence) | Richardson: prior‑bad‑act evidence was propensity evidence and prejudicial; requested finding on clear-and-convincing proof. | Govt: prior assault showed motive for attacking Brown (same source of alleged wrongdoing). | Admission proper as motive evidence; trial court’s failure to expressly state clear‑and‑convincing finding harmless. |
| Request for missing‑evidence instruction | Richardson: police failed to recover/test all scene items (chair parts, clothing); instruction warranted. | Govt: missing items not likely to elucidate self‑defense issue; instruction unnecessary. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing the instruction; appellant failed to show the evidence would likely elucidate contested issue. |
| Merger of convictions | Appellants: some convictions duplicate elements of AAWA and should merge. | Govt: convictions were charged separately. | ADW and ASBI are lesser‑included offenses of AAWA; remand to vacate merged counts (no resentencing needed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Settles v. United States, 522 A.2d 348 (D.C. 1987) (one offense may "logically lead" to another for joinder)
- Bush v. United States, 516 A.2d 186 (D.C. 1986) ("sequel" offenses and joinder; obstruction as sequel)
- Carpenter v. United States, 430 A.2d 496 (D.C. 1981) (duty to minimize prejudice in joint trials; sanitize co‑defendant statements)
- United States v. Drew, 331 F.2d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1964) ("separate and distinct" presentation requirement for multiple offenses under Rule 8(a))
- Jackson v. United States, 329 A.2d 782 (D.C. 1974) (joinder proper where defendants participated in same series of acts)
- Nixon v. United States, 730 A.2d 145 (D.C. 1999) (definition of "serious bodily injury")
- Jenkins v. United States, 877 A.2d 1062 (D.C. 2005) (stabbings, hospital treatment, surgery and pain medication can support "extreme physical pain")
- Gathy v. United States, 754 A.2d 912 (D.C. 2000) (ADW as lesser‑included of AAWA)
- Collins v. United States, 73 A.3d 974 (D.C. 2013) (ASBI is lesser‑included of aggravated assault)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless‑error standard for cumulative prejudice)