Marques An'Rico Johnson v. United States
118 A.3d 199
D.C.2015Background
- On Nov. 17, 2011, Marques Johnson was tried for shooting Timothy Conrad multiple times outside an apartment building; Conrad survived after treatment for seven gunshot wounds. Police recovered seven expended casings labeled “WIN .380 auto” at the scene and later seized a 9mm semi-automatic handgun from an apartment where Johnson hid; the gun contained ten live rounds labeled “WIN .380 auto.”
- Government DNA expert testified the major male DNA profile on the gun’s trigger matched Johnson. Government firearms expert test-fired the recovered 9mm and could not conclusively link the casings from the scene to that gun but successfully fired .380 rounds twice, noting an occasional failure to eject that required manual cycling.
- Defense firearms expert opined it was highly unlikely a 9mm could fire seven .380 rounds in rapid succession without failing to fire or eject, supporting Johnson’s theory that he could not have fired the shots attributed to him.
- Pretrial and midtrial disputes arose over defense access to the firearm for independent test-firing; defense requested testing close to trial but the court and prosecution took steps to make evidence available at the courthouse; defense did not press for a continuance and never re-urged a test-fire request, and the expert did not test-fire the gun.
- Trial rulings contested on appeal: refusal to compel independent testing under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16; exclusion of juvenile adjudications for impeachment; challenged jury instruction on aggravated assault mens rea; admission of government DNA expert’s slide demonstrative.
- Appellant convicted of aggravated assault while armed, two counts of ADW, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFCV), and carrying a dangerous weapon. The court affirmed convictions but remanded to vacate merged convictions (ADW and attendant PFCV counts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government refusal to allow independent test-firing of the gun under Rule 16 | Johnson: government prevented defense expert from testing the firearm, violating Rule 16 and hampering defense theory that the gun could not fire .380 rounds rapidly | Government: produced evidence, offered alternatives, and the defense declined continuance or to secure necessary tools; no prejudice | No Rule 16 violation or abuse of discretion; government and court took reasonable steps and defense failed to preserve/request relief; reviewed de novo for Rule construction and abuse of discretion for sanctions |
| Use of juvenile adjudications to impeach victim (Conrad) | Johnson: trial court wrongly prevented cross-examining Conrad with juvenile adjudications to show bias/credibility | Government: juvenile adjudications were not probative of bias because supervision had ended; prior adult convictions and pending charges were available for impeachment | No Sixth Amendment violation; exclusion was within court’s discretion because juvenile records did not show bias and would be cumulative |
| Jury instruction for aggravated assault mens rea (omission of “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life”) | Johnson: instruction omitted statutory language and thus misstated mental-state element for aggravated assault subsection (a)(2) | Government: instruction followed revised model jury instruction reflecting case law; error, if any, was not prejudicial | Court inclined error existed but on plain-error review Johnson failed to show impact on substantial rights (evidence supported subsection (a)(1)); no reversal |
| Use of DNA demonstrative slides by government expert | Johnson: slides were misleading (no discussion of false positives, variation in DNA transfer, error rates, or lack of DNA on grip) and risked unfair prejudice | Government: slides were demonstrative, helpful, and court warned jury to rely only on admitted evidence; cross-examination could expose limitations | Admission of slides was not an abuse of discretion; court appropriately instructed jury and allowed cross-examination to address shortcomings |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. United States, 75 A.3d 174 (discusses de novo review of Rule 16 interpretation)
- Austin v. United States, 64 A.3d 413 (sanction decisions for discovery violations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Thorne v. United States, 582 A.2d 964 (preservation rules for discovery objections)
- Walls v. United States, 773 A.2d 424 (limits on impeachment with juvenile adjudications and Confrontation Clause cross-examination standards)
- Tabron v. United States, 410 A.2d 209 (juvenile adjudications admissibility for impeachment limited to bias showing)
- Clark v. United States, 639 A.2d 76 (harmless-error standard when complete deprivation of cross-examination occurs)
- Parker v. United States, 586 A.2d 720 (abuse-of-discretion review for limiting cross-examination)
- Graham v. United States, 12 A.3d 1159 (plain-error review framework for unpreserved jury-instruction claims)
- Lowery v. United States, 3 A.3d 1169 (four-part plain-error test)
- Perry v. United States, 36 A.3d 799 (interpretation of aggravated-assault mens rea and discussion of gross recklessness/"extreme indifference")
- Comber v. United States, 584 A.2d 26 (definition of malice as subjective awareness of extreme risk)
- Lloyd v. United States, 64 A.3d 405 (admissibility and cautionary instruction for demonstrative evidence)
- Robinson v. United States, 50 A.3d 508 (merger of predicate offenses affecting PFCV convictions)
- Carter v. United States, 531 A.2d 956 (holding on concurrent sentences and re-sentencing not required when vacated counts were concurrent)