Lloyd v. United States
64 A.3d 405
D.C.2013Background
- Appellant was convicted of first-degree cruelty to children after a jury trial.
- The appeal challenges two trial practices: (i) showing Exhibit 64 (liver/abdomen illustration) to the jury without a cautionary instruction, (ii) prosecutor questioning appellant about witnesses fabricating testimony.
- A.M. suffered multiple blunt-force injuries with a large subdural hematoma and liver contusion; doctors testified that injuries were non-accidental and not consistent with a fall down stairs.
- Exhibit 64 was described as an illustrative diagram of blunt-force injury to the liver; it was not actually introduced into evidence.
- The court ultimately held the exhibit’s failure to include a cautionary instruction harmless and the cross-examination questions not plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the demonstrative exhibit required a cautionary instruction | Hammond/Burleson support admonition | Exhibit illustrative, not admitted into evidence | Harmless error despite lacking cautionary instruction |
| Whether prosecutor's cross-exam questions about witnesses lying was plain error | McLeod/Allen prohibit such credibility-lacing questions | Questions marginally relevant | Not plain error; no reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammond v. United States, 501 A.2d 796 (D.C.1985) (demonstrative aids must be explained to avoid prejudice)
- Burleson v. United States, 306 A.2d 659 (D.C.1973) (illustrative evidence must not mislead or be unduly prejudicial)
- Williams v. United States, 641 A.2d 479 (D.C.1994) (abuse of discretion standard for demonstrative aids)
- Taylor v. United States, 601 A.2d 1060 (D.C.1991) (relevance and potential help to the trier of fact for demonstratives)
- McLeod v. United States, 568 A.2d 1094 (D.C.1990) (improper to ask if a witness is lying or mistaken about another witness)
- Allen v. United States, 837 A.2d 917 (D.C.2003) (rejecting that a witness must allege perjury to be disbelieved)
- Scott v. United States, 619 A.2d 917 (D.C.1993) (prohibition on credibility-impeachment questioning phrasing)
- Freeman v. United States, 495 A.2d 1183 (D.C.1985) (court credibility instructions mitigate improper questioning)
- Carter v. United States, 475 A.2d 1118 (D.C.1984) (no plain error where court instructs jury on credibility)
- Wright v. United States, 513 A.2d 804 (D.C.1986) (credibility instructions reduce prejudice)