50 A.3d 490
D.C.2012Background
- Robles was charged with two counts each of misdemeanor sexual abuse of S.L. and M.V. under D.C. Code § 22-3006.
- A bench trial convicted Robles on the S.L. counts and acquitted him on the M.V. counts.
- The incidents occurred at the Ronald Reagan Building; M.V. and S.L. were coworkers with Robles in supervisory roles.
- Robles moved to sever the M.V. counts from the S.L. counts; the court denied severance on mutual admissibility grounds.
- The court admitted evidence suggesting Robles’s intent to commit sexual acts across both sets of charges, and relied on it to convict on S.L.; eventually the convictions were reversed on appeal for prejudicial error.
- The opinion also addresses admissibility of delayed reports under the report-of-rape rule and remands for retrial on the S.L. counts only with limited consideration of the M.V. evidence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying severance based on mutual admissibility under Drew. | Robles | Robles contends joint evidence unfairly prejudiced him. | Yes; severance error reversed convictions. |
| Whether the mutual-admissibility ruling improperly influenced the S.L. verdicts. | Robles | Evidence of M.V. was probative of intent but not essential. | Yes; prejudice established, convictions reversed. |
| Whether delayed reports by S.L. were admissible under the report-of-rape rule. | Robles | Delay explained by embarrassment and fear warranted admissibility. | Yes; delay found adequate to admit the reports in limited fashion. |
| Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence under Drew and applying it to intent across counts. | Robles | Drew exceptions applicable when state of mind is genuine issue. | No; court erred in recognizing mutual admissibility for intent. |
| What is the appropriate remedy on remand given the prejudicial error? | Robles | Retrial on S.L. counts limited. | Convictions vacated; retrial to be limited to S.L. counts with constrained use of M.V. evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85 (D.C.Cir.1964) (mutual admissibility for intent, motive, absence of mistake when state of mind is a genuine issue)
- Howard v. United States, 663 A.2d 524 (D.C.1995) (intent/motive not a material issue in this context)
- Rose v. United States, 629 A.2d 526 (D.C.1993) (treats tentative assumptions about Drew exceptions with caution)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S.1946) (burden on government to show lack of prejudice in joint trials)
- McFerguson v. United States, 870 A.2d 1199 (D.C.2005) (prejudice standard in joint trial contexts)
- Thompson v. United States, 546 A.2d 414 (D.C.1988) (limits on admitting other-crimes evidence)
- Fitzgerald v. United States, 443 A.2d 1295 (D.C.1982) (promptness of complaints; admissibility based on reasons for delay)
- Battle v. United States, 630 A.2d 211 (D.C.1993) (report-of-rape rule; admissibility based on reasons for delay)
- Evans v. United States, 392 A.2d 1015 (D.C.1978) (duty to monitor unfair prejudice from joinder)