Romero v. United States, 266 A.3d 217

On April 23, 2016, Christian Romero was involved in a street altercation on Kennedy Street, N.W.; he stabbed Dimas Fuentes-Lazo, who later died. Romero was charged with second-degree murder while armed.
Government proof included eyewitness testimony, security camera footage, and DNA linking the knife and a Coca‑Cola bottle to the victim and Romero.
Romero testified claiming self‑defense and denied ever intending to kill or harm anyone, saying “I would never do that.” He acknowledged a 2013 Maryland first‑degree assault conviction.
Pretrial, the government notified defense it would not use the Maryland conviction in its case‑in‑chief but reserved the right to impeach Romero if he testified in a way that suggested he could not have stabbed someone. The prior conviction involved stabbing a victim multiple times.
The trial court ruled Romero had “opened the door” and permitted limited cross‑examination to elicit that the prior assault involved a knife stabbing multiple times, limited use in closing, and gave limiting instructions that the prior conviction was for credibility only.
The jury convicted Romero; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the limited impeachment evidence under the curative‑admissibility doctrine and after weighing prejudice vs. probative value.

Issue	Romero's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Romero’s testimony opened the door to elicit facts underlying his prior assault conviction (curative admissibility)	Romero said only he would never intend to kill someone (or meant only that he wouldn’t on that night), so that did not justify impeachment with details of an unrelated stabbing	Romero’s categorical denial that he "would never do that," amid questions about intending to harm/kill, put character/intent at issue and justified limited impeachment to correct the misleading impression	Court: Romero opened the door; plain‑error review of narrowing claim failed; reviewed abuse of discretion for preserved objections and affirmed admission
Whether eliciting that the prior assault was a multiple stabbing was unduly prejudicial (Rule 403 balancing)	The true details were more prejudicial than probative; risk of propensity inference was high and jurors’ note showed confusion	Government: facts were necessary to rebut Romero’s claim and relevant to intent; court limited scope and gave instructions to mitigate prejudice	Court: Probative value (to impeach claimed lack of homicidal intent) outweighed risk; limiting measures (scope, no closing reference, jury instructions) avoided unfair prejudice

Goines v. United States, 905 A.2d 795 (D.C. 2006) (discusses "curative admissibility" and standard for door‑opening)
Mercer v. United States, 724 A.2d 1176 (D.C. 1999) (cautions against overuse of curative admissibility; evaluate prejudice vs. probative value)
Furr v. United States, 157 A.3d 1245 (D.C. 2017) (emphasizes restraint before admitting other‑crimes evidence under curative rationale)
Harrison v. United States, 30 A.3d 169 (D.C. 2011) (other‑crimes evidence excluded when relevance rests primarily on propensity inference)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (unfair prejudice definition and consideration of less‑prejudicial alternatives)
Johns v. United States, 434 A.2d 463 (D.C. 1981) (government may rebut defendant’s character assertions with evidence of specific acts)