Smith v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 282
D.C.2013Background
- Smith was convicted by a DC jury of obstructing justice and two counts of introducing contraband; Thompson was convicted of introducing contraband, three counts of perjury, and obstructing justice.
- Appellants challenge jury instructions defining contraband messages, challenge the contraband message statute as vague, and argue weight/sufficiency issues.
- Factual core centers on a 2009 shooting involving the Smiths, a grand jury investigation, witness identifications, Stover’s recantation, and prison-cellphone communications linked to Smith and Thompson.
- Cellphone records and jail calls suggested attempts to influence witness testimony; trial evidence included testimony from Hicks and Akia; Stover’s grand jury testimony contrasted with trial testimony.
- The court reviews the challenges under harmless error and sufficiency standards, upholding convictions on both defendants.
- The court notes reduced First Amendment rights of prisoners and defers to legislative judgments on prison security when interpreting contraband messages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of contraband message consistent with statute | Thompson: need content element | Smith: definition proper | Not error; definition consistent with purpose |
| Vagueness of contraband message statute | Statute fails notice | Statute not vague; standard is comprehensible | Not vague; notice adequate |
| Sufficiency for obstruction of justice (Smith) | Evidence insufficient to show contact to influence Stover | Evidence supports influence attempt via phone activity | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency for Thompson’s perjury and obstruction | Two-witness rule not satisfied | Circumstantial evidence supports falsity and materiality | Convictions for perjury affirmed; obstruction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (harmless error review governs constitutional errors)
- McDonald v. United States, 904 A.2d 377 (D.C. 2006) (harmless-error standard in convicting proceedings)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
- Blanton v. City of N. Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (Supreme Court 1989) (legislature determines seriousness of offense)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court 1974) (First Amendment limits in prisons)
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court 1974) (mail and inmate communication restrictions upheld)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (Supreme Court 1983) (due process notice and vagueness)
- McNeely v. United States, 874 A.2d 371 (D.C. 2005) (void-for-vagueness requires some standard of conduct)
- Murphy v. United States, 670 A.2d 1361 (D.C. 1996) (two-witness rule may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence)