Smith v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 432
D.C.2011Background
- Damon Smith was convicted by jury of second-degree murder while armed and related weapons offenses in the March 2004 killing of Bradley Gant.
- Key prosecution theory linked the murder to a stabbing dispute; victim identified Smith as the stabber in testimony that the court later admitted as an excited utterance.
- Ahman Driver, a plea-wased cooperating witness with a plea deal, provided the principal link between Smith and the murder weapon and testimony that Smith confessed and that the gun misfired.
- Detective Morales, lead on the murder investigation, faced allegations of coaching witnesses in another case (Club U); a DOJ investigation was pending.
- Smith sought to impeach Morales and to admit Club U material to show bias; the trial court limited both lines of attack, and the court admitted limited motive evidence via Brown’s identification of Smith as the stabber.
- On appeal, the DC Court of Appeals held that cumulative trial errors prejudiced Smith and reversed for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Brown's excited utterance | Smith argued Brown's statement was admissible as excited utterance to show motive. | State argued it was admissible under excited utterance and not improperly admitted. | Admission error; excited utterance criteria not satisfied. |
| Exclusion/improper handling of Detective McCloud testimony | Smith should be allowed to show Gant said he had no idea who stabbed him; admissible under Crawford and as non-testimonial hearsay/impeachment. | Trial court properly constrained hearsay and Crawford implications. | Error to exclude/limit McCloud testimony; Crawford framework misapplied. |
| Impeachment of Detective Morales with Club U investigation | Club U investigation evidence would show Morales's bias and motive to favor prosecution; admissible for impeachment. | Club U evidence insufficient to establish misconduct; potential prejudice. | Error to preclude Club U impeachment; Morales's investigation relevant to credibility. |
| Cumulative effect of trial errors | Multiple errors collectively prejudiced the defense and cannot be considered harmless. | Some errors harmless individually; cumulative effect not shown. | Cumulative errors substantially influenced the jury; reversal and remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (standard for assessing whether errors collectively influenced the verdict)
- Foreman v. United States, 792 A.2d 1043 (D.C.2002) (cumulative-error standard for reversal in multi-error cases)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause and testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (definitions of testimonial and non-testimonial statements for hearsay exceptions)
- Melendez v. United States, 26 A.3d 234 (D.C.2011) (hearsay and reliability considerations in expert/forensic-like declarations)
- Young v. United States, 391 A.2d 248 (D.C.1978) (excited utterance requirements and spontaneity)
- Reyes-Contreras v. United States, 719 A.2d 503 (D.C.1998) (stressing the formidable nature of serious events as material to excited utterance analysis)
- Odemns v. United States, 901 A.2d 770 (D.C.2006) (timing and spontaneity in excited utterance analysis)
- Brown v. United States, 683 A.2d 118 (D.C.1996) (impeachment and bias as core aspects of fair-trial rights)