King v. United States
75 A.3d 113
D.C.2013Background
- On Oct. 14, 2008 Toni Smart identified Rashawn King as the shooter who killed James Hill; police sought King and executed a warrant at his mother’s home but did not find him.
- Police surveilled the neighborhood for ten days and did not observe King; ten days after the shooting he was pursued in a high‑speed car chase in another district, arrested, and gave a false name.
- King was later tried and convicted of carjacking; this appeal challenges evidentiary rulings in his murder trial.
- The government sought to admit (a) evidence King was absent from his mother’s home for ten days and (b) evidence of the car chase and his giving a false name, as consciousness‑of‑guilt (flight) evidence.
- Defense proffered alternative explanations (staying with girlfriend; “on the run” for a juvenile matter). Court admitted flight evidence but limited mention of the carjacking; defense acquiesced to admission of car‑chase evidence at pretrial.
- King also challenged impeachment/rebuttal questioning suggesting a defense witness (Sturgis) discouraged prosecution witnesses from testifying; court allowed limited bias impeachment and excluded some hearsay rebuttal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of car chase and alias as flight evidence | Gov: car chase and giving false name show consciousness of guilt and corroborate ID | King: such evidence is prejudicial and unrelated; should be excluded | Waived by defense at pretrial; appellate court won’t consider (no reversible error) |
| Admissibility of absence from mother’s house (10‑day disappearance) as flight evidence | Gov: absence plus surveillance supports inference of flight/consciousness of guilt | King: absence may be explained by staying with girlfriend or juvenile matter; court failed to evaluate alternatives | Trial court erred in analysis (failed full Myers inquiry) but error was harmless given strong eyewitness/corroborative evidence |
| Standard for admitting flight evidence | Gov: flight is admission by conduct; probative unless outweighed by prejudice | King: flight requires chain of inferences tying conduct to charged crime; court must consider alternative explanations | Court reiterates Myers chain‑of‑inferences and Rule 403 balancing; trial courts must assess alternative explanations before admitting flight evidence |
| Admission of impeachment/bias evidence implying witness intimidation | Gov: cross‑examination to show bias (encouraging witnesses not to testify) is proper; limited rebuttal admissible | King: prosecutor impermissibly implied threats and introduced hearsay rebuttal to suggest intimidation | Court: bias inquiry permissible; prosecutor did not elicit threats to show intimidation of witnesses; no prejudicial error |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. United States, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.) (framework requiring chain of inferences for flight evidence)
- Williams v. United States, 52 A.3d 25 (D.C. 2012) (adoption of Myers chain‑of‑inferences analysis for consciousness‑of‑guilt evidence)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless error standard assessing whether error substantially swayed the jury)
- Smith v. United States, 777 A.2d 801 (D.C. 2001) (flight evidence must show actual guilt of charged crime; courts consider alternative explanations)
- Williamson v. United States, 445 A.2d 975 (D.C. 1982) (trial courts must weigh probative value of flight evidence against prejudicial impact)
- Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499 (1896) (cautionary observation that innocents sometimes flee; limits of flight inference)
- Foreman v. United States, 792 A.2d 1043 (D.C. 2002) (limits on admitting threats solely to attack general credibility)