Wynn v. United States
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 321
| D.C. | 2012Background
- Bennett, Ross, and Wynn were acquitted of first-degree murder but convicted of obstruction of justice under D.C. Code § 22-722(a)(6); the court reverses these obstruction convictions.
- The incident occurred after Damon Clark was shot; Ross was seen near a burgundy Buick with a gun; Goodwine let Ross, Bennett, and Wynn into her apartment; Bennett blocked the door; Wynn and Ross hid a gun; Goodwine later removed the bag containing the gun upstairs.
- Police recovered a .45-caliber Hi-Point in a Toyota Camry near the scene, which officers later fired after removing a stuck bullet; other weapons were not recovered.
- The government framed obstruction as hiding or moving weapons to obstruct justice; the defense challenged whether the MPD investigation into the shooting qualifies as an “official proceeding.”
- The court held that the MPD’s initial scene response does not constitute an “official proceeding” for obstruction, reversing the obstruction convictions; Wynn’s CPWL conviction remains affirmed and remanded for potential resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MPD initial police response qualify as an official proceeding under §22-722(a)(6) | State: police investigation while responding to a crime is an official proceeding | Appellants: officials proceedings require formal proceedings like grand juries or trials | No; initial police response is not an official proceeding |
| Was Wynn entitled to a special unanimity instruction on CPWL | Wynn: multiple weapons/scenarios require unanimity on the exact incident | State: general unanimity instruction suffices | Plain error shown; however, lack of unanimity instruction did not warrant reversal of CPWL conviction given the record; CPWL affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Timberlake v. United States, 758 A.2d 978 (D.C.2000) (forecloses the notion that police investigation alone is an official proceeding for obstruction)
- Crutchfield v. United States, 779 A.2d 307 (D.C.2001) (distinguishes obstruction with witnesses from the official proceeding scope)
- Castillo-Campos v. United States, 987 A.2d 476 (D.C.2010) (illustrates application of due administration of justice in context of witness intimidation)
- Scarborough v. United States, 522 A.2d 869 (D.C.1987) (unanimity instruction may be required for legally separate incidents)
- Youssef v. United States, 27 A.3d 1202 (D.C.2011) (reaffirmed requires unanimity on which incidents constitute the crime)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S.1981) (plurality on unanimity and multiple incidents considerations)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S.1999) (discussed in context of unanimity principles)
- Price v. United States, 813 A.2d 169 (D.C.2002) (evidence sufficiency standards relevant to operability in CPWL)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (U.S.1991) (operability of firearms and evidentiary standards)
- Crutchfield v. United States, 779 A.2d 307 (D.C.2001) (see above)