King v. United States
2013 WL 4779713
D.C.2013Background
- On Oct. 24, 2008, Rahshawn King and Christopher Holmes committed an armed carjacking/robbery of James Nelson; King confronted Nelson at gunpoint, took money and keys, and fled in Nelson’s car while Holmes followed.
- Police chased the vehicles; King was captured on foot the same day; Holmes escaped and was arrested weeks later.
- While jailed (Jan. 10–Feb. 24, 2009), Holmes made recorded phone calls to Terrence Connor that prosecutors say show a conspiracy to obstruct justice (to keep Nelson from "ratting").
- King and Holmes were tried jointly on carjacking, armed robbery, related traffic/offense counts, and PFCV counts; Holmes was separately charged with obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct. Trial court denied motions to sever.
- At trial two officers who reviewed dozens of recorded jail calls testified, over objection, as lay witnesses about the meaning of various street slang terms used in the calls (e.g., "gleezy," "40," "bagged"). The jury convicted both defendants on all counts.
- On appeal the court affirmed convictions except it held King’s two PFCV convictions must merge and remanded to vacate one PFCV conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of police testimony interpreting street slang | Holmes: officers lacked sufficient personal foundation; interpretation is specialized and requires expert testimony | Government/officers: testimony based on officers’ personal perceptions and street experience; admissible as lay opinion under Rule 701 | Admission was not an abuse of discretion; officers’ interpretations were based on personal perception and everyday reasoning processes, so lay testimony was proper |
| Joinder under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 8(b) of carjacking/robbery with subsequent obstruction counts | King: obstruction occurred months later, was not inevitable, and King did not participate; joinder prejudicial | Government: obstruction was a logical sequel to the underlying crime and therefore part of same transaction for joinder purposes | Denial of severance affirmed; joinder proper because obstruction was a sequel to the underlying offenses and joinder precedent supports inclusion |
| Merger of two PFCV convictions | King: two PFCV convictions arose from a single, uninterrupted possession during one violent act and therefore must merge | Government: PFCV convictions tied to distinct predicate felonies (carjacking and robbery) | Held PFCV convictions merge where they arise from one continuous possession during a single act of violence; remand to vacate one PFCV conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) (focus on the witness’s reasoning process to determine lay vs. expert testimony)
- United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2006) (officer’s lay opinion based on ordinary observations could be admissible)
- Davis v. United States, 367 A.2d 1254 (D.C. 1976) (standards for joinder of counts/co-defendants under Rule 8(b))
- Bush v. United States, 516 A.2d 186 (D.C. 1986) (subsequent obstruction charge may be joined as a sequel to the underlying crime)
- Nixon v. United States, 730 A.2d 145 (D.C. 1999) (principle governing merger of multiple PFCV convictions)
- Matthews v. United States, 892 A.2d 1100 (D.C. 2006) (multiple PFCV convictions merge when based on uninterrupted possession during a single act of violence)
- Carter v. United States, 614 A.2d 913 (D.C. 1992) (police lay testimony about observations of criminal events is permissible)
- Sanders v. United States, 809 A.2d 584 (D.C. 2002) (standard of review for Rule 701 challenges)