Paige v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 438
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Paige and Hill were charged jointly with first-degree murder while armed, PFCV, and individually with CPWL; Hill pled guilty in 2002 and Paige went to trial with a mistrial, then a second trial in 2003 resulted in Paige's conviction on second-degree murder while armed, PFCV, and CPWL.
- An eyewitness, Griffin, identified Paige and Hill at trial after initially recanting; her testimony was later shown to be inconsistent, but she identified Paige in court at the second trial.
- Physical evidence included five shell casings near the Trinidad/Neal intersection matched to a 9 mm pistol found at Hill's home; no casings were found near the truck, and there was testimony about a revolver potentially firing sparks.
- The government’s case included Griffin’s testimony corroborated by other witnesses placing Paige near the scene; defense pointed to inconsistencies and conducted cross-examination to challenge reliability.
- During trial, the government elicited references to Hill’s guilty plea for purposes of impeaching a witness; these references and lack of a limiting instruction became the basis for several constitutional and evidentiary challenges.
- The trial court denied motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial; Paige appeals challenging Confrontation Clause handling, hearsay concerns, the aiding-and-abetting instruction, evidentiary sufficiency, IPA-related issues, and the constitutionality of CPWL and PFCV statutes; the DC Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause error from Hill’s guilty plea references | Paige: references were testimonial and violated Crawford rights | State: references were non-testimonial, impeachment only | Not plain error; references not prejudicial enough to warrant reversal |
| Admissibility of Hill's guilty plea as hearsay | Paige: plea constituted inadmissible hearsay | State: references served to show witness bias, not to prove guilt | Not plain error; admission not reversible in context |
| Aiding and abetting instruction adequacy | Paige: needed same mens rea for aider and abettor | State: instruction consistent with precedent and lacked no mens rea requirement | No plain error; instructions were proper under governing DC law |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Griffin’s testimony conflicted and lacked physical corroboration | Griffin’s testimony, viewed for credibility, sufficient | Griffin’s testimony sufficient to sustain conviction when believed by the jury |
| IPA/new-trial and ineffective assistance challenges | New trial warranted; ineffective assistance/uncovered evidence | Trial court conducted hearing and found no prejudice | No abuse of discretion; motions denied on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional harmless error standard for undisputed error)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review governs; reasonable specificity required for objections)
- Morten v. United States, 856 A.2d 595 (D.C. 2004) (co-defendant statements; Crawford contex t; plain-error analysis)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (definition of testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements)
- Clarke v. United States, 943 A.2d 555 (D.C. 2008) (family or non-law-enforcement context weighs against testimonial finding)
- Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (D.C. 2006) (requirement that aider-and-abettor share principal's intent—en banc decision context)