Kenneth Furr v. United States
2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 78
D.C.2017Background
- Kenneth Furr (off‑duty MPD officer) was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon (ADW) for pointing a gun at Patterson outside a CVS after an earlier solicitation incident with a transgender woman.
- Patterson testified Furr pointed a gun at him; Officer Edward Stewart (CVS security/off‑duty officer) testified Patterson did not tell him a gun had been displayed, creating a credibility conflict central to the ADW charge.
- MPD conducted an internal investigation into whether Stewart took appropriate action; Stewart testified he was "exonerated," but the defense was barred from eliciting the investigatory reasons (hearsay concerns).
- The prosecutor on redirect asked an unanswered question suggesting Stewart’s exoneration might have been based solely on his own statement; the court allowed a recall of Stewart to clarify that other components and witness statements were considered.
- Defense sought to call Lieutenant John Haines (the investigator) to describe what was considered and why Stewart was exonerated; the trial court excluded Haines’s testimony as irrelevant, hearsay, and likely to prejudice or confuse the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Furr) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Lt. Haines’s testimony about MPD investigation | Haines should be allowed to explain the basis for Stewart’s exoneration to rebut prosecutor’s implication and to vindicate Stewart, which affects Stewart’s credibility | Stewart’s exoneration fact was already established; Haines’s details are hearsay, irrelevant to proving facts, and would risk prejudice/confusing jury | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding Haines: investigation’s existence was probative of Stewart’s motive, but Haines’s findings and underlying statements were inadmissible hearsay and more prejudicial than probative |
| Curative‑admissibility / "opening the door" — whether further curative testimony was required | Given prosecutor’s unanswered question implying a sham exoneration, curative testimony from Haines was necessary to remove unfair prejudice | Court and government argued recall of Stewart (confirming other components were considered) sufficed to cure any implication; further details would invite collateral mini‑trial | Court found recall of Stewart and jury instructions adequate; curative admissibility doctrine did not require Haines’s testimony because the danger of unfair prejudice was removed |
| Prosecutor’s rebuttal comment that Stewart “didn’t do his job” (plain‑error review) | Comment was improper and contradicted MPD’s investigative conclusion; trial court should have intervened sua sponte | Comment was fair argument based on trial evidence and impeachment theory; no contemporaneous objection so only plain‑error review applies | No plain error: remark was permissible characterization of evidence and impeachment; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Riddick v. United States, 995 A.2d 212 (D.C. 2010) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Foreman v. United States, 792 A.2d 1043 (D.C. 2002) (probative value vs. unfair prejudice analysis under Rule 403)
- Mercer v. United States, 724 A.2d 1176 (D.C. 1999) (trial judge’s discretion in excluding evidence that risks prejudice or confusion)
- Howard v. United States, 978 A.2d 1202 (D.C. 2009) (curative‑admissibility doctrine and limited redirect to dispel prejudice when defense opened the subject)
- Johnson v. United States, 960 A.2d 281 (D.C. 2008) (deference to trial court’s contextual evidentiary judgments)
- Young v. United States, 63 A.3d 1033 (D.C. 2013) (hearsay rule applies whether substance or implication is offered to prove truth)
- Irick v. United States, 565 A.2d 26 (D.C. 1989) (distinguishing permissible argument from improper expression of counsel’s personal opinion)
- Grayton v. United States, 745 A.2d 274 (D.C. 2000) (limits on admission of collateral evidence and preventing misleading juries)