Lopez v. United States, 77 A.3d 412

Two defendants, Angela Guevara and Demecio Lopez, faced eight charges arising from a June 5, 2010 abduction and stabbing of Silvano Lopez.
Guevara was convicted only of threatening to injure or kidnap Silvano Lopez; Demecio was convicted on six counts including conspiracy, kidnapping while armed, aggravated assault while armed, mayhem while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, and threatening to injure or kidnap.
The government presented witnesses who spoke Spanish or Q’eqchi’, with the trial court providing enhanced translation safeguards (two interpreters, jurors alerting translation errors, counsel monitoring).
Translation issues arose early in Silvano Lopez’s testimony; interpreters were updated and the court and counsel worked to clarify translations throughout trial.
Guevara argued that the evidence shows three distinct threats, potentially requiring a special unanimity instruction; Demecio contended translation problems deprived him of a fair trial.
Both appellants failed to preserve their objections at trial; the court ultimately found no plain error in the unanimity instruction or translation handling, and the verdicts were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sua sponte special unanimity instruction was required	Guevara contends three separate threats necessitate unanimity as to which threat underlies her conviction.	Guevara argues the record shows multiple threats; the court should have given a special unanimity instruction.	No plain error; no clear evidence three threats were factually or legally separable.
Whether trial translation issues violated Demecio Lopez’s rights	Lopez asserts translation problems denied him a fair trial and right to confrontation.	Lopez contends the court failed to correct translation errors adequately.	No plain error; court reasonably remedied translation issues and preserved fair trial.

Williams v. United States, 981 A.2d 1224 (D.C. 2009) (unanimity instruction disputed where threats were separated by time and means)
Gray v. United States, 544 A.2d 1255 (D.C. 1988) (continuing course of conduct; short separations do not necessarily create multiple offenses)
Parks v. United States, 627 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1993) (special unanimity required when a single count covers distinct incidents)
Scarborough v. United States, 522 A.2d 869 (D.C. 1987) (unanimity instruction needed to avoid convicting on separate incidents)
Simms v. United States, 634 A.2d 442 (D.C. 1993) (ambiguous supplemental instruction can be plain error when it allows multiple bases for conviction)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard requires obvious error harming fairness)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain-error review guidance cited in context of unanimity and error correction)
Hasty v. United States, 669 A.2d 127 (D.C. 1995) (emphasizes plain-error review and corrective action)
Comford v. United States, 947 A.2d 1181 (D.C. 2008) (trial error must affect substantial rights for plain-error reversal)
Gonzalez v. United States, 697 A.2d 825 (D.C. 1997) (unanimity and trial error considerations in context of close cases)