Snowden v. United States
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 475
| D.C. | 2012Background
- Appellant was convicted in D.C. Superior Court of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, four counts of AWIRWA, one count of AAWA, and two PFCV relating to a May 2, 2008 robbery and shooting.
- Lorenzo Ross and relatives confronted a group of five armed youths; appellant was identified by Lorenzo as the first gunman with prior bus-riding familiarity and a distinguishing tattoo.
- A second gunman with a bandana or mask targeted the group, while appellant fled with the proceeds after a struggle with Scales, who was shot during the escape.
- Photographs and trial testimony linked appellant to the crime; defense presented Shaelin Rush who testified she did not see the events and did not want to testify.
- Convictions included co-conspirator liability for the AAWA and multiple PFCV counts, with some merger rulings issued by the court.
- Key issues on appeal included sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy-based AAWA, AWIRWA against multiple victims, eyewitness identification reliability, and merger rules for AWIRWA and PFCV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conspiracy liability for AAWA sufficiency | Government argued Pinkerton liability for second gunman's act. | Appellant contends shooting was random, not in furtherance or foreseeability. | Sufficient evidence supports AAWA under Pinkerton. |
| Whether second gunman’s shot was in furtherance of the conspiracy | Shot aided completion of robbery and escape. | Shot was a random act not tied to conspiracy. | Shot was in furtherance of the conspiracy and reasonably foreseeable. |
| Sufficiency of AWIRWA against four victims | Second gunman’s actions and appellant’s conduct show intent to rob the group. | Only Scales was actively assaulted by appellant. | Evidence supports four AWIRWA convictions; vicarious liability for co-conspirator applies. |
| Eyewitness identification sufficiency | Lorenzo’s identification was reliable due to familiarity and viewing conditions. | Discrepancies undermine reliability of identification. | Identification sufficient; credibility issues for jury. |
| Merger of AWIRWA convictions | Counts reflect separate assaults on different victims; should not merge. | Single assaultive act against group could warrant merging. | AWIRWA convictions do not merge; based on number of targeted victims and intent. |
| Merger of PFCV convictions with armed robbery and AAWA | Blockburger test allows separate PFCV convictions. | PFCV should merge with underlying armed offenses. | PFCV convictions do not merge with armed robbery or AAWA; elements are distinct under Blockburger and Thomas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1946) (co-conspirator liability for acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of conspiracy)
- Castillo-Campos v. United States, 987 A.2d 476 (D.C.2010) (continuation of robbery as part of conspiracy for liability)
- Rivenbark, 533 A.2d 271 (Md. 1987) (factors for whether acts further conspiracy; asportation context)
- Graure v. United States, 18 A.3d 743 (D.C.2011) (unit of prosecution for AWIRWA and related crimes; focus on individuals exposed to injury)
- Thomas v. United States, 602 A.2d 647 (D.C.1992) (Blockburger analysis; merger of PFCV with armed offenses under statutory elements)