17 A.3d 621
D.C.2011Background
- Victim Joshua Arrington was shot six times on July 20, 2004; he identified Johnson as the shooter to Officer Ba'th while in and out of consciousness.
- Defendants Antonio Johnson and Marcus Martin were charged in a five-count indictment: conspiracy to murder, first-degree premeditated murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, carrying a pistol without a license, obstruction of justice.
- Arrington died a few hours after the hospital admission; the statements were admitted as dying declarations.
- August 2004: Johnson’s then-girlfriend Tatum Plater gave a video-taped statement to police alleging Johnson’s involvement in the murder.
- Plater testified to grand jury and later disavowed the statements at trial; the video was played with redactions.
- Eggleston pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and testified for the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arrington’s statements were admissible as dying declarations | Johnson argues they are not dying declarations | State argues sufficient evidence of impending death; circumstantial life-threatening condition | Yes; statements satisfied the dying-declaration exception |
| Whether admission violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Statements were testimonial and violative under Crawford | Under Davis/Michigan v. Bryant, not testimonial given ongoing emergency | No; statements not testimonial under Crawford/Bryant |
| Prosecutor's comments about Plater’s fear of Johnson | Prosecutor’s fear remark was unsupported and prejudicial | Conflict evidence allowed; fear supported by inconsistent statements | The court did not err; comments permissible given Plater’s conflicting statements |
| Bruton issue regarding Plater’s video statements about Johnson affecting Martin | Redacted statements still incriminate Martin | Redactions and non-testimonial nature prevent Bruton error | No Bruton violation; redaction adequate; statements not testimonial |
| Rule 14/Carpenter considerations for co-defendant redactions | Redaction insufficient to prevent prejudice | Court ensured redactions; limiting instruction provided | No error; redaction sufficient to minimize prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyons v. United States, 683 A.2d 1080 (D.C.1996) (dying declaration factors; consciousness of impending death)
- Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1933) (dying declarations basics)
- Bell v. United States, 801 A.2d 117 (D.C.2002) (implications for death-imminence inference)
- McFadden v. United States, 395 A.2d 14 (D.C.1978) (circumstances show impending death may be inferred)
- Jenkins v. United States, 617 A.2d 529 (D.C.1992) (despair from wounds; evidence supports inference)
- Butler v. United States, 614 A.2d 875 (D.C.1992) (dying declarations near-immediate death context)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S.2006) (non-testimonial statements in ongoing emergency)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S.2011) (continuing/ongoing emergency framework)
- Simpson v. United States, 877 A.2d 1045 (D.C.2005) (prosecutor can reference witness credibility based on video grand jury evidence)
- Thomas v. United States, 978 A.2d 1211 (D.C.2009) (non-testimonial, casual statements not Bruton/ Crawford)
- Carpenter v. United States, 430 A.2d 496 (D.C.1981) (Rule 14 redactions to prevent prejudice)
- Plater v. United States, 745 A.2d 953 (D.C.2000) (redacted statements and identification of non-declarant)