Thomas v. United States
59 A.3d 1252
D.C.2013Background
- Todd Thomas was convicted after a jury trial of five counts of first-degree burglary, one count of attempted second-degree burglary, two counts of assault, and one count of fourth-degree sexual abuse with aggravating circumstances.
- The Georgetown incidents involved male victims in two adjoining townhomes and a nearby 35th Street location, with multiple victims testifying to sexual touching, entry, or attempted entry.
- Thomas was also linked to a separate Virginia sexual assault in December 2008, whose victim testified at trial and formed the basis for the government’s argument about motive and identity.
- The trial court admitted the Virginia sex-offense evidence under an other-crimes framework, while excluding Winfield third-party perpetrator evidence and excluding expert identification testimony.
- Thomas proffered Winfield evidence to suggest a different perpetrator, but the court found insufficient nexus and dissimilarities to the charged offenses.
- The court allowed in on-scene identifications and limited the Virginia incident’s use to certain purposes, but the appellate court reversed on the admissibility of the other-crimes evidence and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the Virginia prior offense as other-crimes evidence | Thomas argues the Virginia offense is admissible under Drew for motive/identity | Thomas contends the evidence is probative and not overly prejudicial; Drew exceptions apply | Abuse of discretion; not admissible under Drew; reversible error |
| Winfield third-party perpetrator evidence admissibility | Thomas contends Georgetown Cuddler evidence could exculpate him | Evidence too remote, dissimilar, lacking nexus | Court did not abuse discretion; Winfield evidence properly excluded |
| Expert eyewitness identification testimony admission | Expert testimony on post-event contamination and confidence-accuracy would aid the jury | Testimony not beyond lay understanding; may be excluded | Trial court ruling not sustained on basis relied; remand to reconsider under Benn/Kassin framework |
| Harmless error analysis for other-crimes evid | Admission was prejudicial and could sway the verdict | Possible limited impact; not dispositive | Error not harmless; reversal required for Drew issue |
| Overall impact on retrial and admissibility framework | New trial should consider all challenged evidentiary rulings | Rulings should be reconsidered in light of Benn/Kassin | Convictions reversed and remanded for a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11 (D.C.1964) (establishes Drew doctrine for admissibility of other-crimes evidence)
- Harrison v. United States, 30 A.3d 169 (D.C.2011) (motive evidence risks impermissible propensity inference)
- Newman v. United States, 705 A.2d 246 (D.C.1997) (requires fairly rigid similarity for Drew-type admission)
- Easton v. United States, 533 A.2d 904 (D.C.1987) (totality of circumstances governs Drew admissibility)
- Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67 (D.C.1979) (identifies similarity requirements for Drew exceptions)
- Boyer v. United States, 132 F.2d 12 (1942) (early guidance on similarity and purpose of prior acts data)
- Brooks v. United States, 448 A.2d 257 (D.C.1982) (Drew framework and strict similarity considerations)
- Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.1977) (criteria for expert testimony relevance in identification)
- Benn v. United States, 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C.2009) (establishes framework for expert identification testimony relevance)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary errors)
- Veney v. United States, 936 A.2d 811 (D.C.2007) (applies Kotteakos harmless-error framework to evidence rulings)