LAMONT L. BUSKEY and KEITH A. SIMMS v. UNITED STATES, 148 A.3d 1193

Background

Two robberies in NW D.C. (Sept. 7 and Sept. 16, 2013) led to indictment of Lamont Buskey and Keith Simms on conspiracy, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and carrying a dangerous weapon (CDW) charges.
Victims and surveillance/mall pawnshop videos tied both defendants to the incidents; victims identified defendants in-court or via photo arrays. Testimony established two knives used in the Sept. 16 incidents.
Trial court instructed jury on substantive offenses, conspiracy, co-conspirator liability, and aiding-and-abetting, but initially omitted specific aiding-and-abetting instructions as to CDW and the “while armed” enhancement elements.
During deliberations the jury sent two notes asking whether aiding-and-abetting applies to CDW and to armed robbery and for clarification of elements; the court responded in writing with supplemental language (including an intent-to-use element and an ‘‘actual knowledge’’ addition for armed robbery) and sent the notes back rather than reading them aloud in open court.
Defendants did not object to the final written responses; on appeal they argued instructional error (failure to instruct properly on aiding-and-abetting for CDW and “while armed” offenses), poor structuring of co‑conspirator instructions, and procedural error in not reading supplemental instructions aloud.
The D.C. Court of Appeals reviewed under plain-error (defense did not timely object), found certain initial omissions were plain errors but concluded the supplemental written instruction and the strength of the evidence cured any prejudice, and affirmed the convictions.

Issues

Issue	Appellants' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by failing to instruct aiding-and-abetting liability for CDW	Trial court omitted that an aider must take affirmative steps to facilitate the principal’s carrying (beyond intent)	Supplemental reply and general instructions fairly stated the law; no prejudice	Error in initial instruction was plain, and the supplemental written response did not fully cure the omission as to the aide’s affirmative conduct element for CDW, but no reversal because evidence established principals and guilt as to CDW
Whether aiding-and-abetting instruction omitted mens rea for "while armed" enhancements	Appellants: jury needed to be instructed that aider must have actual knowledge of weapon for §22‑4502 enhancements	Government: supplemental instruction made clear aiding-and-abetting applied to armed offenses and cured any omission	Court: initial omission was plain error, but the written supplemental instruction (stating actual knowledge requirement for armed robbery and implicitly for other armed counts) cured the defect and no prejudice shown
Whether placement/structure of co-conspirator liability instruction was misleading	Appellants: co-conspirator instruction was buried within conspiracy/overt-acts discussion, obscuring distinction from aiding-and-abetting	Government: instruction substance was correct; placement not objected to at trial	Court: plain error in structure because it blurred distinct theories, but no reversible prejudice shown on record
Whether court erred by sending written responses rather than reading them aloud in open court	Appellants: written-only responses violated precedent requiring supplemental instructions to be read in open court and denied counsel opportunity to be heard on the record	Government: other circuits allow written responses; no prejudice here	Court: sending written responses (without reading aloud) was error, but did not affect substantial rights given the evidence and the content of the responses; convictions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (error is plain unless waived) (establishes plain-error review framework)
Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (aider-and-abettor must have mens rea extending to entire offense)
Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (instructional content on aiding-and-abetting is a legal question reviewed de novo)
McCoy v. United States, 760 A.2d 164 (aider must engage in affirmative conduct to support CDW liability)
Halicki v. United States, 614 A.2d 499 (same principle that accomplice must do something in furtherance of the weapon-carrying)
Reed v. United States, 828 A.2d 159 (elements of CDW: carrying; general intent to carry; purpose to use as a dangerous weapon)
Broadie v. United States, 925 A.2d 605 (CDW is a standalone offense and requires proof defendant actually carried a weapon)
Robinson v. United States, 100 A.3d 95 (aider must have actual knowledge of the weapon for “while armed” enhancements)
Mobley v. United States, 101 A.3d 406 (timely objection requirement for jury instructions and plain-error review)
Fortune v. United States, 59 A.3d 949 (plain-error prongs and effect on substantial rights)