Napper v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 294
D.C.2011Background
- Napper was charged with first-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and carrying a pistol without a license for the 9/8/2007 Carter killing; a jury found him guilty on all counts.
- Key eyewitness Reeves and Brooks identified Napper as the shooter; Reeves testified about the shooting from near Carter’s car, and Brooks saw Napper with a gun and spoke with him after the shooting.
- The defense theory was that Charlie Smith (aka Gutter) was the shooter, supported by GPS-tracking data and other testimony suggesting alternative culprits.
- Napper voluntarily appeared at the Homicide Office on 9/11/2007; two camera pods recorded his interview and surrounding calls, and he made three calls while alone in the room.
- Napper moved to suppress the three cell-phone calls as unlawfully intercepted; the trial court denied the motion, ruling Napper knew he was being recorded but considering privacy expectations in the room.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cell-phone calls in the interview room were admissible. | Napper argues the calls were unlawfully seized under the Fourth Amendment and the wiretap statute. | USA argues Napper had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the room given surveillance and conduct. | Denied; court held Napper lacked both subjective and objective privacy expectations in the room. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Napper of murder without an aiding-and-abetting instruction. | Napper contends the evidence largely implicates Charlie as the shooter, not Napper. | USA contends the evidence, including eyewitness IDs and circumstantial proof, supports Napper as the shooter even without an aiding-and-abetting instruction. | Affirmed; evidence sufficient to sustain conviction as the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishes reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test for Fourth Amendment)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (focus on reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Khaalis v. United States, 408 A.2d 313 (D.C.1979) (wiretapping statute analogue to Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (recognizes evaluating subjective expectations as factual findings)
- Belmer v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 123 (Va. App. 2001) (interrogation room privacy considerations)
- Patton v. United States, 633 A.2d 800 (D.C.1993) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Womack v. United States, 673 A.2d 603 (D.C.1996) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error rule for omitted theory of liability)
- United States v. Abozid, 257 F.3d 191 (2d Cir.2001) (harmless error when aiding-and-abetting instruction omitted)
- Fox v. United States, 11 A.3d 1282 (D.C.2011) (aiding-and-abetting theory relevance to liability)