Lazo v. United States
54 A.3d 1221
D.C.2012Background
- Vicente Lazo was convicted of two counts of misdemeanor sexual abuse of G.F., a nine-year-old, under D.C. Code § 22-3006; Information covered a period between March 20, 2008 and September 16, 2008.
- G.F. testified that the abuse occurred in Aunt Telma’s apartment, with threats made by appellant; multiple family members testified inconsistently about timing and circumstances.
- Defense challenged the Information for lacking a precise date, and moved for acquittal; trial court found the act occurred between August and September 2008 and convicted on two counts, merging them, with probation and other conditions.
- On appeal, the issues argued were: (1) insufficiency of notice due to the date range; (2) failure to independently inquire into Jencks material; (3) sufficiency of the evidence.
- The court remanded for an evidentiary Jencks inquiry regarding statements by the complaining witness and her mother to determine if Jencks material existed and affected prejudice.
- If Jencks material is found and prejudice shown, the conviction should be vacated and a new trial ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of charging document dating | Lazo claims six-month window is overly broad and prejudicial. | Lazo argues information lacked precise date, which may prejudice defense, potentially violating notice. | The six-month range provided fair notice; not reversible for lack of specificity. |
| Evidence sufficiency within the charged period | Prosecution proved abuse occurred within March–Sept 2008; evidence sufficient. | Defense argued lack of precise date undermines sufficiency. | Evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the acts occurred within the charged period. |
| Jencks Act duty regarding second officer notes | Trial court failed to independently inquire into Jencks material from a second officer. | Prosecutor represented no Jencks material existed for the second officer. | Trial court abused its discretion; remand for independent Jencks inquiry. |
| Jencks material from Roa’s interview with Flores and social worker | Notes or statements may exist from Flores’s interviews and from a social worker; should be examined. | No adequate showing that Jencks material existed in possession of government for these interviews. | Remand to determine if Jencks material existed; potential for new proceedings if material is found. |
| Remedial scope for Jencks violations | Jencks violations could require new trial if material is impeachment evidence and prejudice shown. | Harmless error if other evidence supports guilt. | Remand to assess prejudice; if Jencks material exists and could have affected credibility, a new trial may be warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olafisoye v. United States, 857 A.2d 1078 (D.C.2004) (two-part test for sufficiency of indictment; notice and double jeopardy considerations)
- In re E.H., 967 A.2d 1270 (D.C.2009) (specificity of sexual act and timing; requires sufficient evidence of date near alleged)
- Jones v. United States, 716 A.2d 160 (D.C.1998) (indictment with ‘on or about’ date permits proximity-based proof)
- Johnson v. United States, 800 A.2d 696 (D.C.2002) (Jencks material and duty to inquire; remand for evidentiary inquiry)
- Bayer v. United States, 651 A.2d 308 (D.C.1994) (Jencks inquiry required when witness testimony raises possibility of notes)
- Flores v. United States, 698 A.2d 474 (D.C.1997) (independent Jencks inquiry when notes exist or potential notes exist)
- Moore v. United States, 657 A.2d 1148 (D.C.1995) (harmless error assessment where other impeachment material exists)
- Middleton v. United States, 401 A.2d 109 (D.C.1979) (Jencks and impeachment considerations in absence of complete production)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S.1946) (harms analysis in evaluating prosecutorial error)